[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8635-S8653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM DESIGNATION ACT

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the pending 
business.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 440) to amend title 23, United States Code, to 
     provide for the designation of the National Highway System, 
     and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 1427

(Purpose: To provide that the national maximum speed limit shall apply 
                   only to commercial motor vehicles)

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1427.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 26, strike line 14 and all that follows 
     through page 28, line 9, and insert the following:

     SEC. 115. LIMITATION OF NATIONAL MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT TO 
                   CERTAIN COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Section 154 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 154. National maximum speed limit for certain 
       commercial motor vehicles'';

       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by inserting ``, with respect to motor vehicles'' 
     before ``(1)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``motor vehicles using 
     it'' and inserting ``vehicles driven or drawn by mechanical 
     power manufactured primarily for use on public highways 
     (except any vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails) 
     using it'';
       (3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Motor Vehicle.--In this section, the term `motor 
     vehicle' has the meaning provided for `commercial motor 
     vehicle' in section 31301(4) of title 49, United States Code, 
     except that the term does not include any vehicle operated 
     exclusively on a rail or rails.'';
       (4) in the first sentence of subsection (e), by striking 
     ``all vehicles'' and inserting ``all motor vehicles''; and
       (5) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (f).
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The analysis for chapter 1 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 154 
     and inserting the following:

``154. National maximum speed limit for certain commercial motor 
              vehicles.''.

       (2) Section 153(i)(2) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' means any 
     vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured 
     primarily for use on public highways, except any vehicle 
     operated exclusively on a rail or rails.''.
       (3) Section 157(d) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``154(f) or''.
       (4) Section 410(i)(3) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Motor vehicle.--The term `motor vehicle' means any 
     vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured 
     primarily for use on public highways, except any vehicle 
     operated exclusively on a rail or rails.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, last weekend, I returned to the State of 
Nevada to speak at two high school graduations in rural Nevada. One of 
the high schools is about 80 miles from Reno, a place called Yerington 
in Lyon County. I spoke there at 10 o'clock in the morning and then 
that evening proceeded to Lovelock, NV, in Pershing County, which is 
about 90 miles from Reno. [[Page S 8636]] 
  I traveled to Yerington by automobile and traveled to Lovelock by 
automobile from Yerington and then back to Reno. It was while I was 
traveling from Lovelock to Reno that evening that I decided that it was 
appropriate to offer the amendment which I have just offered.
  I was on an interstate traveling at 65 miles an hour, and there were 
a number of occasions when trucks passed the car in which I was a 
passenger. There were other occasions during that day, certainly fixed 
in my mind that night, when we had had difficulty with trucks in many 
different ways--their loads moving as they proceeded up the roadway, as 
we tried to pass them on occasion.
  Mr. President, as those of us who live in rural America, who spend 
time in rural America, know, trucks travel at great speeds. It is not 
infrequent that a truck will pass a car doing the speed limit. We know 
that it was necessary through Government regulation that there had to 
be a ban placed on the ability of trucks to determine if there were law 
enforcement officers in the vicinity with radar to see what their speed 
was. They all traveled with radar detectors, and that had to be 
outlawed because trucks drove so fast. There have been a number of 
programs on national television of how trucks travel, how the drivers 
are tired, how they have now, with deregulation, a significant number 
of miles to make, they have loads to pick up, they have loads to 
deliver.
  This amendment is about safety on the highways. That is why, Mr. 
President, in newspapers all over the country, and certainly 
illustrated in yesterday's USA Today, the question is asked: ``Why are 
the Nation's highways getting deadlier?'' There are a lot of answers to 
questions like that asked in yesterday's USA Today.
  One reason is truck traffic. If a passenger vehicle is in an accident 
with a truck and there are fatalities involved, there is a 98 percent 
chance that the passenger in the passenger vehicle is going to lose. 
Trucks win almost all the time. Almost 100 percent of the time trucks 
win and the passengers in the cars are killed and the trucks can drive 
off. Those of us who spend time in Congress are forced to read 
newspapers from here, we listen to the news here and we know the 
beltway around the Nation's Capital is deadly. Why? It is deadly 
because of trucks. I dread my family being on the beltway around 
Washington because of the trucks--they change lanes, they go fast. It 
is very, very difficult to feel safe when these trucks are barreling 
down the road trying to meet deadlines and carrying huge loads.
  The amendment I have proposed is to provide that the national speed 
limit apply only to commercial motor vehicles. What we did in 
committee--I am a member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee--is report a bill to the Senate which, in effect, did away 
with the speed limit. The reasoning was that States are better able to 
set speed limits, and I agree with that; that with passenger vehicles, 
a State like Nevada or a State like Colorado is better able to 
determine what the speed limits should be. Should there be a speed 
limit around Las Vegas that is one speed and a speed limit around 
Winnemucca that is another speed? The question is obviously yes. There 
should be some discretion left to State and local governments to set 
speed limits, but as relates to commercial vehicles, we should have a 
national speed limit. There is no question about that. Most of the 
commercial vehicles, of course, travel in interstate commerce.
  Specifically, this amendment takes issue with the large commercial 
trucks which travel around our Nation's highways. Why is it critical to 
maintain a speed limit for this small proportion of vehicles? The 
reason is because one out of every eight fatalities on our roads today 
is the result of a collision involving a large truck, a commercial 
vehicle. In fact, tractor-trailer trucks are involved in more fatal 
crashes per unit of travel than passenger vehicles. In fact, Mr. 
President, about 60 percent more
 passenger vehicles are involved at about 2.5 per 100 million miles. 
Trucks, commercial vehicles that this amendment applies to, are almost 
4. That is about a 60 percent difference. But what is even more 
striking is the fact that, as I have indicated, a little less than 2 
percent of the people who are driving in a passenger car, who are 
involved in an accident with a truck--whether there are fatalities 
involved--survive, whereas trucks almost always remain.

  Getting into an accident with a large truck is a hazard to a smaller 
vehicle. This means that the lives of us, our spouses, children and 
friends, are at risk when on the roads with these large commercial 
vehicles. It is interesting to note that most of the deaths occur 
during the daytime. I wondered why that is. Well, the reason is that 
there are more trucks on the road and certainly more passenger cars on 
the road. These trucks have places to go, they have time limits to 
meet, they have loads to pick up and loads to deliver. They are there 
on the road because they have some place to go and they want to be 
there as quickly as possible. That is how they make money. We need to 
set a standardized speed limit for these trucks.
  As I indicated in my trip to rural Nevada last week, when I realized 
that we were doing the wrong thing by having a lifting of the speed 
limit for all vehicles, most of us have had the same experience of 
sharing the road with large trucks. They are a fact of life on the 
highways, and we all recognize that. But many of us have also had the 
unnerving experience of sharing the road with trucks that either 
tailgate--we have all had that--and you have to go faster because if 
you do not, you have the feeling that truck is going to run right over 
you. We have had the other experience of trucks barreling around us. 
The road seems too small, too narrow for these large tractor trailers 
and my little car. And these trucks seem to go too fast. There is good 
reason for us to be frightened by these unsafe practices. Speed not 
only increases the likelihood of crashing, of an accident, but also the 
severity of the crashes. Common sense dictates that the trucks are 
going to win these battles. Science indicates that trucks always win 
these battles.
  Crash severity increases proportionately with speed. An impact of 35 
miles an hour is a third more violent than one at 30 miles an hour. 
Increasing the energy which must be dissipated in a crash increases the 
likelihood of severe injury or death.
  Mr. President, research has shown that vehicles are more likely to be 
traveling at higher speeds--that is, more than 65 miles an hour in 
States which have the 65 miles an hour speed limit. Many studies show 
that if you have a speed limit of 55, trucks will exceed that by at 
least 5 miles an hour. If you have a speed limit at 65, they will 
exceed it by at least 5 miles an hour. So if you have an unlimited 
speed limit or one of 70 or 75, trucks are going to be going faster. 
The scientific evidence is that these large trucks--and certainly a car 
also--but the faster these large trucks go, the more difficulty they 
have avoiding an accident or the more probability they have of causing 
an accident. Passenger cars stop more quickly than do trucks.
  There is clear evidence that the proportions of vehicles traveling at 
high speeds are substantially lower in areas where the speed limit is 
55. As a result, where there are more cars with increased speeds, there 
are more deaths. Studies show that States which raised speed limits to 
65 miles an hour lose an additional 400 lives annually. So it is of 
utmost importance to preserve a standardized speed limit for these 
large trucks. As I have indicated, basic science, and specifically 
basic physics, tells us that the force of large trucks is already much 
larger than that of other motor vehicles. And increased speed only 
escalates the force with which a truck could impact another vehicle or 
pedestrian.
  Also, large trucks have longer braking distances, as I have 
indicated, than cars. So a lower traveling speed for large trucks 
equalizes the stopping distances of trucks and cars. Some have asked, 
not very heartfully, Why do we need a different speed for trucks than 
cars. There are a number of reasons. One really apparent reason is that 
trucks take a significantly longer distance to brake, to slow down and 
to stop than do cars. That is one reason to have different speed 
limits.
  In emergency situations, a shorter braking distance is an imperative 
to avoidance of impact. Speed limits do have an influence on the 
driving speeds of these trucks, as I have indicated. [[Page S 
8637]] Studies have found that the percentage of trucks traveling over 
70 miles an hour is at least twice--some studies show at lease six 
times--larger in States with a 65-mile-an-hour speed limit as in States 
with 55-mile-an-hour speed limits, the faster the speed limit, the more 
tendency there is for trucks to drive even faster. The speed of large 
trucks is truly a national concern. Most of these large commercial 
vehicles are involved in interstate travel, often passing through 
numerous States.
  When I was a kid--as I am sure many others did--I looked at all the 
different license plates on the trucks. Some trucks have 10 or 12 
license plates on one truck. Almost all of them have at least four. So 
this is certainly a problem of interstate travel. By maintaining a 
Federal limit, we will promote uniform truck operations from State to 
State and there will be more predictable truck behavior for the drivers 
of passenger vehicles.
  From past incidents involving the weaving or tailgating of trucks, we 
all know how uniformity and predictability means greater peace of mind 
for all drivers on the highway.
  Mr. President, when I came back from Lovelock and indicated to my 
staff I was going to offer this amendment, my legislative director 
said, ``I was almost killed by a truck when I was in college.'' He was 
in a small passenger car with some friends, and there was no alcohol in 
the car. They were driving safe and sound. In fact, they were run over 
by a truck. The truck was going too fast and did not see them. Almost 
everyone has a comparable experience, where a truck has either nearly 
killed them or, in effect, they or some member of their family has been 
involved in an accident with a truck. The really tragic part of this is 
that most people who are in an accident with trucks, fortunately, live 
to regret it. Passenger vehicles simply do not do well against a truck. 
There has been a positive trend in recent years in fatalities, 
generally, and in truck-related fatalities and injuries.
  This amendment is to maintain commercial trucking within the maximum 
speed limit. Why? Because it is essential in this positive trend. When 
we have programs and regulations with positive results, we should not 
retreat.
  Mr. President, there are all kinds of statistics. We have one out of 
the New York Times. In this article, written by Jim McNamara, the fatal 
accident rate remains steady. Data show a rise in accidents and miles 
for all vehicles. Specifically, this relates to trucks. Accidents 
involving large trucks in 1993 was 32,000 people injured, and a 
significant number of others were killed. Trucks were involved in 4,320 
fatal crashes in 1993, up by about 300 in 1992. So, specifically 98. 
Those accidents killed a total of 4,849 people, up from 4,462 the year 
before. Truck occupants accounted for 610 of these fatalities. So in 
this one year, the people in the trucks did not do as well as they had 
in previous years.
  There are questions that people ask. If the trucking industry has to 
abide by a speed limit, why not apply it to everybody? Well, again, let 
me answer that question, Mr. President. Trucks provide a unique 
dimension on the roadways. Their size is both intimidating to passenger 
vehicles and a hindrance to one's view.
  Additionally, by going faster than the established speed limit, the 
chance of accidents increases because of the weight and size of the 
trucks and the need for slowing, stopping, and even space.
  The next question that is commonly asked--there actually appears to 
be a trend in truck-related fatalities, positive in recent years--Why 
do we need to keep them under the speed limit?
  The whole point, and I just made it a minute ago, Mr. President, is 
there is a positive trend as the industry has abided by law. Hence, we 
should not repeal that which has been doing so well.
  I do, Mr. President, indicate that there are some instances where the 
trend is not favorable. In areas that are more heavily populated, 
truck-related accidents and deaths are increasing.
  The next question that is commonly asked: Why do we need the Federal 
Government to still be involved? The States are aware of the towns, 
villages and cities, as are most passenger vehicles who travel on roads 
in the States. Most of the travel in any State is not interstate, it is 
intrastate. That is not the way it is with truck traffic. The 
interstate nature of the commercial trucking and bus industry is 
inherently interstate. If ever there was a matter of interstate 
commerce, it certainly would be trucks.
  Mr. President, again, why should trucks have a lower speed limit than 
other vehicles? The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety certainly 
believes that that is the case. Large trucks require much longer 
breaking distances than cars to stop. Lower speed limits for trucks 
make heavy vehicle stopping distances closer to those of lighter 
vehicles. Slower truck speeds also allow automobile drivers to pass 
trucks more easily. Crashes involving large trucks not only can cause 
massive traffic tieups in congested areas, but put other road users at 
great risk.
  Over 98 percent of the people killed in two-vehicle crashes involving 
a passenger vehicle and a large truck are occupants, of course, of the 
passenger vehicle. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety studies 
have shown that lower speed limits for trucks on 65-mile-an-hour 
highways lower the proportion of travelers faster than 70 miles an hour 
without increasing variation among vehicle speeds.
  In one study, trucks exceeded the speed limit in Ohio about 4 percent 
of the time; in other studies, for example, in Arizona, 19 percent; in 
Iowa, 9 percent. So, twice as many trucks exceeded the speed limit in 
those States. It is important to allow passenger vehicles to have some 
semblance of comparability with these trucks, to slow down the trucks.
  As I have indicated earlier, Mr. President, almost 5,000 people died 
in large truck crashes in 1993. Large trucks accounted--this is 
interesting--for 3 percent of the registered vehicles, 7 percent of 
vehicle miles traveled in the last statistics we had in 1990, but they 
were involved in over 11 percent of all 1990 crashes.
  We start with 3 percent of the vehicles, and you wind up with 7 
percent of the miles traveled, but you get up to over 11 percent of the 
fatal crashes.
  We have to be aware that trucks are a problem. The faster trucks go, 
the bigger the problem. It certainly is not unreasonable, on an 
interstate highway system, to have a uniform speed for trucks. We do 
not need it for cars, maybe, passenger cars--and I did not oppose that 
in the committee.
  I think the State of Nevada is an example that States should have the 
ability to set their own speed limits for passenger cars. I do believe 
we should have a uniform speed limit for trucks, commercial vehicles.
  A risk of a large truck crash, of course, is higher at night than 
during the day. More crash deaths occur, as I have indicated, between 6 
a.m. and 6 p.m. for obvious reasons. There are significantly more 
passenger cars on the road at that time, and trucks in heavy traffic 
cause a lot of problems.
  It is also interesting, Mr. President, more large truck crash deaths 
occur on weekdays than on weekends; again, because of the heavy traffic 
from passenger vehicles.
  I repeat, over 98 percent of the people killed in two-vehicle crashes 
involving a passenger vehicle and a large truck were occupants of the 
passenger vehicles. Passenger vehicles do not do well when they get in 
an accident with a truck. Common sense indicates that is the case. And 
science indicates that is certainly the case. Tractor trailers had a 
higher fatal crash involvement rate of about 60 percent more than did 
passenger vehicles.
  Mr. President, 24 percent of large truck deaths occur on freeways. 
The rest are strewn around in other roadways throughout the United 
States. One of the things we are doing in this highway bill is 
designating other roadways so they can get Federal funds. There are a 
lot of important travelways throughout the United States that are not 
part of our interstate freeway system. That is one of the things this 
bill will do.
  Tractor trailers studied on toll roads--and we have not done any good 
work on that in almost 10 years--had higher per mile crash rates than 
passenger vehicles. That is an understatement, Mr. President; 69 
percent higher in New Jersey, 23 percent higher in Kansas, and 34 
percent higher in Florida.
  We know one reason that this provision of the law that we are going 
to be [[Page S 8638]] debating here this morning--that is, dealing with 
doing away with the speed limit for passenger vehicles--the reason that 
came about is that it is a States right issue. It is a States right 
argument. The States do know best.
  No such issue exists with relation to trucks and interstate buses. 
That is what we are dealing with here. These trucks, these commercial 
vehicles, Mr. President, should have some national standard by which 
the speed limits are controlled.
  A loaded tractor trailer takes as much as 42 percent farther than a 
car to stop when they are going 60 miles an hour. That is a significant 
figure. Rounding it off, it takes almost 50 percent longer for a truck 
to stop than a car when driving 60 miles an hour. Remember what we are 
trying to stop--a huge vehicle with those huge tires, and the heavy 
loads that they have.
  We have also learned that this distance is the difference between 
having an accident and not having an accident. By slowing these trucks 
down, we are going to have less fatalities.
  Driver fatigue--Mr. President, we do not have people who are super 
men and women driving trucks, no more than we have super men and women 
driving passenger vehicles. Those driving passenger vehicles get tired 
driving a car. People also get tired driving a truck. These people do 
it professionally, but that does not mean they do not get tired. Driver 
fatigue is something that is available to all. It is nondiscriminatory. 
That is one of the things we have to take into consideration.
  Alcohol and drugs. Truck drivers also abuse alcohol. We have talked 
about radar detectors.
  I repeat, large trucks accounted for 3 percent of registered 
vehicles, 7 percent of miles traveled, and they were involved in over 
11 percent of all fatal crashes. That is an indication that we should 
do something about these trucks barreling down the road.
  Do large trucks pose a hazard on the road? The answer is yes. Almost 
5,000 people die each year in crashes involving large trucks. Most of 
the people who die, again, I indicate, over 98 percent of the people 
who die in these accidents, are not in the trucks, but are in the cars. 
They are sharing the road with the trucks. Large trucks, 3 percent of 
the registrations, 7 percent of the miles traveled, but over 11 percent 
of the fatal crashes.
  I have indicated, Mr. President, we have done some things to try to 
slow trucks down. Radar detector use now is banned in commercial trucks 
involved in interstate commerce. The one problem we do have with that 
is the Federal Government is not enforcing that.
 It is left up to the States, and the States, most States, frankly, 
have not done a very good job enforcing that and a large number of 
truck drivers still use the radar detectors.

  As I indicated, for 42 percent of the drivers of large trucks 
involved in fatal crashes in 1993, police reported one or more errors 
or other factors related to the driver's behavior associated with the 
crash. So truck crashes are not caused by passenger vehicles. For 42 
percent of them, when investigated by police, it is found there are 
errors related to the truck driver's behavior associated with the 
crash. The factors most often noted in multiple vehicle crashes were 
failure to keep in lane, failure to yield right-of-way, and driving too 
fast for conditions or exceeding the speed limit. This is what they 
have found has been the problem with truck drivers.
  I think it is important to note that most truck drivers drive safe, 
sound. But the fact of the matter is they have a tremendous 
responsibility. They are driving these huge pieces of equipment. I 
think it is important that we give the other driving public the 
recognition that trucks should travel no faster than a national speed 
limit.
  So this amendment, I repeat, will simply provide that the national 
speed limit apply only to commercial motor vehicles. I think this is 
reasonable. I think it is fair, especially when you indicate, as we 
have seen in the USA Today, yesterday, ``Why are the Nation's highways 
getting deadlier?'' There are a lot of reasons they are getting 
deadlier, but we should not contribute to that by allowing trucks to 
travel at unrestricted speeds throughout the United States.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished 
sponsor of this amendment if he defines trucks? Is it by weight?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will give the legal definition out of the 
United States Code; simply out of the United States Code.
  Mr. CHAFEE. So the term ``truck'' is a term of art, a special term?
  Mr. REID. It is a specific term. It does not apply to pickups. It 
applies to commercial vehicles and buses. I appreciate the chairman of 
the committee bringing that to the attention of the Senator.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a definition out of the United States Code, what this means.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Sec. 2503.  Definitions

       For purposes of this title, the term--
       (1) ``commercial motor vehicle'' means any self-propelled 
     or towed vehicle used on highways in interstate commerce to 
     transport passengers or property--
       (A) if such vehicle has a gross vehicle weight rating of 
     10,001 or more pounds;
       (B) if such vehicle is designed to transport more than 15 
     passengers, including the driver; or
       (C) if such vehicle is used in the transportation of 
     materials found by the Secretary to be hazardous for the 
     purposes of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 
     U.S.C. App. 1801-1812), and are transported in a quantity 
     requiring placarding under regulations issued by the 
     Secretary under such Act [49 USCS Appx Sec. Sec. 1801-1812];

  Mr. CHAFEE. That will be helpful, because I am sure there will be 
concerns about whether we are talking about pickups and so forth.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Reid 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to offer my support to the 
amendment presented by Senator Reid to maintain the current Federal 
maximum speed limit requirement for trucks. In fact, I support the 
current national speed limit along with the distinguished occupant of 
the President's chair for both cars and trucks. It is a proven fact 
that the law will save both lives and money. Unfortunately, the bill 
before us eliminates Federal speed limits altogether, and I recognize 
that the total removal of that provision, the abolition of speed 
limits, is not possible in this Congress though I hope that the 
amendment that the Senator from Nevada is offering will pass. And I 
hope that the amendment that I will be offering soon with the 
distinguished Senator from Ohio also will get favorable attention.
  But at the moment, in considering just the speed limit for trucks, 
boy, I could not be more emphatic in my belief that we do our country a 
service if we maintain speed limits on trucks. As a matter of fact, 
there is not anybody, I do not care how barren your State is of 
population, I do not care how wide the roads are, who has not been 
upset at a point in his time or in his or her day when a big behemoth 
comes rolling down the highway, either gets behind you, wants you to 
move over or pulls up alongside you at what could be described at 
almost a totally death-defying speed. It is so surprising when it 
happens. It is unpleasant.
  I authored a piece of legislation some years ago and have been 
involved in [[Page S 8639]] safety issues, along with the distinguished 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Chafee, 
and with Senator Baucus, the ranking member of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, for many years. I was the author on the Senate 
side of the bill to raise the drinking age to 21. And whether they know 
it or not, 10,000 families were spared having to sit and grieve and 
mourn over the loss of a child because they did not experience it as a 
result of raising the drinking age to 21. Ten thousand kids were spared 
from dying on the highways in the last 10 years.
  Mr. President, I also was a principal author of the legislation to 
ban radar detectors in trucks. I saw no earthly reason why we would 
condone the use of a device to thwart the law. What is the difference 
between saying you can use cop-killer bullets when in fact they ought 
to be outlawed, banned wherever the possibility occurs that they could 
be used because we want to protect people? We ought to make sure that 
trucks do not exceed proper speed limits on the highways over which 
they travel.
  As a matter of fact, I learned just this morning that in Europe and 
Australia the crash rates for trucks on some of the roads are far in 
excess of ours. By the way, the countries in Europe are long known for 
their excellent highways, high-speed driving, lots of fun tearing down 
the autobahn at 100-plus miles an hour. It used to be fair game until 
there were too many deaths, too many injuries for people to stand. So 
they said enough of that, and they imposed speed limits. They still 
have roads that do not have speed limits on them, and they are now 
considering putting speed limits on those roads as well and they do 
limit truck speeds in most of these countries.
  So we have an opportunity here to correct a wrong. I think what we 
ought to do, and we traditionally do as we consider legislation, is 
offer amendments to correct what each or any of us thinks is wrong. In 
this case, I think there is a terrible wrong in lifting the speed limit 
caps off of our roads.
  Senator Reid is trying to take care of part of that with his 
amendment today. And I hope that when the Senator from Ohio and I offer 
our amendment later on, that we will get the support of the Senate. The 
evidence is clear. Speed kills. When trucks are brought into the 
equation, speed is even more deadly.
  In 1992, over 4,400 men, women, and children were killed in truck 
crashes. And every year over 100,000 Americans are injured, many very 
seriously, in accidents involving trucks. That is true although trucks 
make up only 3 percent of the vehicles on our Nation's roads and 
highways and 12 percent of the traffic on interstates. They are, 
however, involved in 38 percent of motorist fatalities in crashes 
involving a truck or more than one vehicle.
  When large trucks weighing more than 10,000 pounds--and that is not a 
lot, Mr. President--collide with passenger vehicles, it is the people 
in the passenger vehicles who are killed most often. Only 2 percent of 
the deaths in such collisions during 1992--I repeat this even though 
the Senator from Nevada said it earlier because I think it is worth the 
emphasis--only 2 percent of the deaths in collisions between a truck 
and another vehicle were the truck occupants. When it came to the 
outcome, 2 percent of those killed were occupants of the trucks. The 
other 98 percent were occupants of the passenger vehicles that collided 
with the trucks.
  In 1947, a truck was 35 feet long and it weighed 40,000 pounds. By 
1990, the normal truck on our highways was 70 feet long and weighed 
80,000 pounds. And during that same period, cars were getting smaller 
and continued to retain a much more compact size, indeed.
  The general driving public does not like to share the roads with the 
trucks because it scares them. It scares them because trucks move so 
rapidly and take so much of the room.
  The fact is that trucks play a vital role in our economy. They move 
vast amounts of goods throughout our country, and we do not want to ban 
trucks from our highways, but we can and should take responsibility to 
ensure that trucks are operated in the safest manner possible.
  Now, Senator Reid's amendment takes responsibility for public safety 
as it relates to trucks, and by requiring trucks to follow the current 
speed limit requirements we are decreasing the potential frequency and 
severity of truck and car accidents.
  According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, more 
commonly known as NHTSA, the chances of death or serious injury doubles 
for every 10 miles per hour that a vehicle travels over 50. Why? 
Because speed increases the distance the truck travels before a driver 
can react in an emergency situation. Speed also increases the force of 
the energy released in an accident.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator from 
New Jersey would yield for a question.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would be glad to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding that the Senator has an amendment 
dealing with the total speed limit.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Right, for all vehicles.
  Mr. CHAFEE. For all vehicles. It would be helpful if the Senator 
could bring that up now, if possible, or very soon when he has finished 
his discussion on the Reid amendment. What we could do is set aside the 
Reid amendment and go to the amendment of the Senator from New Jersey. 
We are trying to get these stacked up, if we can, and then the 
objective would be to have several votes after 12:15.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I would like to cooperate. I do not mind speeding 
this portion along.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Fine.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Rhode Island.
  As I was saying, the increased force and energy causes more severe 
injuries to the drivers and occupants of cars. Now, if professional 
truck drivers and the trucking industry are going to be allowed to use 
the public infrastructure, then they should be held to the highest 
public safety standards.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to support the Reid amendment. I 
hope that it will be successful. I think that its value can be 
expressed in the number of lives saved, costs reduced, and a more 
efficient and constructive use of our highway facilities.
  I commend the Senator from Nevada for bringing this amendment forward 
and hope that when the Lautenberg-DeWine amendment comes to the floor, 
he will be equally enthusiastic about that as I am about his. But we 
will have to wait and see.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the Senator from New Jersey is in the 
Chamber, I wish to extend my appreciation to the Senator for supporting 
this amendment but also to establish in the Record the fact that this 
Senator, the ranking member of the Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee and a member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, has worked for many years on matters relating to health and 
safety of the American consumers as it relates to transportation.
  I flew across the country yesterday with my wife, and coincidentally 
reflected on that airplane how much more pleasant the flight was as a 
result of the fact that we did not have people smoking.
  For many, many years while serving in Congress, I inhaled secondhand 
smoke every time I took an airplane ride. It was as a result of the 
statements made by stewards and stewardesses on the airplanes, in 
addition to passengers complaining, that the Senator from New Jersey 
led the fight--and it was a fight against principally the tobacco 
industry--to make travel in airplanes certainly more pleasant as a 
result of not smoking.
  I sit next to the Senator from New Jersey on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee and have for 9 years and have participated in 
his efforts to make our highways safer. I also am now, for the first 
time since being in the Senate, a member of the Subcommittee on 
Transportation Appropriations, where the Senator has worked for many 
years appropriating money for highways throughout the United States. So 
I appreciate the support of the Senator from New Jersey on this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I would like also to state what is in the United 
States Code defined as a commercial motor vehicle. [[Page S 8640]] It 
is defined as any vehicle with a gross vehicle weight of 26,001 pounds, 
or greater than 16 passengers, or containing hazardous materials in 
certain quantities or any explosives. And we will submit, as I 
indicated to the chairman of the committee and the manager of this 
bill, to be made part of the Record that definition of the United 
States Code which I will have momentarily.
  I certainly have no objection to having my amendment set aside so 
that the Senate can go on to other matters to move this very important 
piece of legislation along.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by my colleague from Nevada to keep the current speed 
limit in place as it relates to trucks.
  According to the California Highway Patrol, the State of California 
has seen a steady reduction in the number of accidents, injuries, and 
fatalities relating to accidents involving trucks since 1989.
  In 1989, 647 people lost their lives and 17,703 people were injured 
in California as a result of 12,159 truck-related accidents.
  By 1994, 451 people were killed and 13,512 injured in California as a 
result of 9,225 truck-related accidents.
  While these figures are nowhere near where we want to be, they do 
demonstrate that a commitment to truck safety: increased oversight on 
driver training and hours of operation; regulations on the size and 
weight of the vehicles; and federally mandatory speed limits. All have 
significant impacts on the increased safety on America's highways.
  In one day this last April, the CHP pulled over 64 big rigs and 
issued almost 200 violations for everything from bad brakes to 
violating air pollution rules. That day, police ordered 34 vehicles off 
the road as a part of a crackdown on the most heavily used truck routes 
in Los Angeles County.
  Now is not the time to begin to turn away from our commitment to make 
America's roadways safe and I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, unless the manager of the bill has 
something, I would suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I ask unanimous consent that we set aside the Reid 
amendment and that we vote on that at 12:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Furthermore, Mr. President, I wish to alert people that 
we are striving to have another amendment voted on immediately 
following the Reid amendment, and that would occur at 12:30. To do 
that, we would set aside the order for the luncheons, which would start 
at 12:30, under the order we have in place.
  Also, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there be no second-
degree amendments to the Reid amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. So it would be my hope now, Mr. President, that the 
Senator from New Jersey would be prepared to go forward with his 
amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1428

  (Purpose: To require States to post maximum speed limits on public 
     highways in accordance with certain highway designations and 
                             descriptions)

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on 
behalf of myself and Senator DeWine and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], for himself 
     and Mr. DeWine, proposes an amendment numbered 1428.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Beginning on page 26, strike line 14 and all that follows 
     through page 28, line 9, and insert the following:

     SEC. 115. POSTING OF MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 154 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 154. Posting of speed limits'';

       (2) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence--
       (i) by inserting ``failed to post'' before ``(1)'';
       (ii) by striking ``in excess of'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``of not more than''; and
       (iii) in paragraph (4), by striking ``not''; and
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``established'' and 
     inserting ``posted'';
       (3) by striking subsection (e); and
       (4) by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (e).
       (b) Certification.--The first sentence of section 141(a) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``enforcing'' and inserting ``posting''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The analysis for chapter 1 of title 23, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking the item relating to section 154 
     and inserting the following:

``154. Posting of speed limits.''.

       (2) Section 157(d) of title 23, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``154(f) or''.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I yield to the manager of the bill, 
Senator Chafee.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that if the Reid 
amendment is agreed to, it be in order for Senator Lautenberg to modify 
his amendment to make technical conforming corrections to his 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, before turning to the specifics of my 
amendment, I want to explain its relationship to the Reid amendment 
which is currently under consideration.
  The Reid amendment is based on two principles:
  First, acknowledging that higher rates of speed are dangerous; 
second, that the Federal Government has a right to regulate dangerous 
speeds.
  If the Senate adopts the Reid amendment, it accepts those principles. 
The Reid amendment does not apply those principles universally; its 
application is restricted to trucks; it does not cover all vehicular 
traffic.
  Mr. President, I would like to argue that the principles that are 
included in the Reid amendment apply to cars as well as trucks.
  When a car travels at excessive speeds, it is as dangerous as a 
truck. When the Federal Government imposes speed limits on trucks, it 
can also impose similar limits on cars. The principles in the Reid 
amendment do not distinguish between types of vehicles; they apply to 
all such vehicles, trucks particularly in this case--all classes.
  That, in essence, is what my amendment does. It applies the Reid 
principle to cars as well as to trucks.
  I would like to provide some background. As my colleagues know, the 
current Federal speed limit law establishes maximum speed limits at 55 
miles per hour or 65 miles per hour depending on the road and the 
road's location. Current law also requires that States certify a 
certain level of compliance with posted speed limits. If they do not, 
States are required to shift part of their construction funding to 
safety programs. They do not lose it, but they have to use those funds 
in other areas.
  The committee bill abolishes those requirements. It allows States to 
post any speed limit they want and removes the penalty if States fail 
to endorse those limits.
  Mr. President, I differ with the committee's action, which I think 
was wrong. I think it will directly contribute to death and injury for 
thousands of American citizens every year. It will cost our society 
billions of dollars in lost productivity and increased health care 
expenditures.
  Now, looking at some facts, in 1974, the Federal Government 
established maximum speed limits. At that time, we were in the middle 
of an energy crisis and the issue was driven by the need to conserve 
fuel. We also found an unexpected additional benefit. Maximum speed 
limits reduced the number of people who died on our Nation's highways.
  In fact, as a result of the 1974 law, highway fatalities dropped by 
almost [[Page S 8641]] 9,000, or 16 percent, while the miles traveled 
decreased by only 2 percent. This was the greatest single-year decrease 
in highway deaths since World War II.
  A total repeal of Federal speed limit requirements will increase the 
number of Americans killed on our Nation's highways by some 4,750 each 
year. Mr. President, 4,750 people each year will die on our highways as 
a result of the increased speed on our roads. Those are not my numbers, 
Mr. President. Those are the numbers, the projections, of the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
  I cannot imagine that 4,700 mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, 
brothers, sisters killed because they were allowed--some might say 
encouraged--to drive faster in order to save a few minutes, minutes 
that will cost them their lives.
  If we do not want to look at the issue in human terms, how about from 
the budget perspective which so many want to adopt? One need not be 
reminded about the stringency of budget requirements around here these 
days.
  It is estimated that the deaths and injuries caused by a total repeal 
of Federal speed limit restrictions will cost our country $15 billion 
in additional expense each year: the loss in productivity, taxes not 
paid and collected, and, of course, increased health care costs.
  If that is not a high enough cost for one, add the $15 billion to the 
$24 billion that we already are losing from accidents caused by 
speeders. Now the total cost to American taxpayers will grow to $39 
billion. That is more than the Federal Government spends on 
transportation each year--each year. That is on our highways, it is on 
our rail systems, on our aviation system. We spend more in repair and 
damage as a result of deaths due to speeding than we spend on our 
infrastructure each and every year. And the lives lost, all of the 
money spent, just to save a few minutes of travel time.
  The point I want to make is that this is more than an issue of States 
rights or individual choice. This is an issue that affects everyone. We 
mourn for the dead, pay for the injured. We have a right and an 
obligation to do what we can, therefore, to minimize the loss and 
reduce the cost.
  The American people seem to understand that very well. A recent poll 
conducted by advocates of highway and auto safety asked people if they 
favored or opposed allowing States to raise speed limits above 65 miles 
per hour on interstates and freeways. Only 31 percent of the total 
respondents favored raising current speed limit standards.
  That same poll asked if the Federal Government should have a strong 
role in setting highway and auto safety standards, and over four out of 
five--close to 83 percent--said, yes, that the Federal Government--the 
Federal Government--should have a strong role in setting highway and 
auto safety standards.
  Still, the committee adopted the language which strikes the limits 
even though a majority of the American people do not support this 
repeal.
  Now, I realize that an amendment to restore current law will not 
prevail in the Senate. As a result, I sought a compromise.
  This amendment recognizes the needs and the concerns of the traveling 
public. It is designed to address the States rights concerns which have 
been raised by some Members. It also recognizes the Federal 
Government's legitimate role and responsibility in not only building 
and maintaining roads but also in ensuring that those roads are safe.
  Mr. President, our amendment would maintain the 55- and 65-mile-per-
hour speed limits, but it would leave the issue of enforcement directly 
to the States. By allowing the States to have responsibility for 
enforcement, this amendment recognizes that States have their limited 
law enforcement capability and resources. I know that every day State 
law enforcement officers must determine how best to allocate these 
resources with the public's safety in mind.
  Mr. President, I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility 
to protect its citizens. It is clear that repealing the Federal maximum 
speed limit will, most importantly, cost our citizens their lives. I 
believe this amendment strikes a balance that we can all live with.
  That is why this amendment has the endorsement of the International 
Association of the Chiefs of Police. They say that there is value to 
maintaining speed limits on our roads. These are professionals, at the 
top of the ladder, chiefs of police. The law enforcement community does 
not want to see a repeal of Federal maximum speed limit requirements.
  This amendment is also supported by the National Safety Council, the 
American Public Health Association, the American Trauma Society, Kemper 
National Insurance Companies, the American College of Emergency 
Physicians, State Farm Insurance Companies, GEICO, and the Advocates 
for Highway and Auto Safety. Additionally, we have the American 
Trucking Association supporting this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent letters of support from these 
organizations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 American Trucking


                                           Associations, Inc.,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 19, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: We support your efforts to retain 
     the 55 mph speed limit for cars and trucks.
       The American Trucking Associations supported 55 mph when it 
     was temporarily imposed in 1974 and later when the permanent 
     55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit was established in 1975.
       We believe the 55 mph speed limit conserves fuel and 
     results in less wear and tear on our equipment. But the most 
     important reason the American Trucking Associations supports 
     the 55 mph national speed limit is that we are convinced it 
     saves lives.
       We are concerned that safety would be reduced if a speed 
     differential were created by raising the speed limit just for 
     cars. This could increase the number of cars hitting the rear 
     of slower moving trucks.
       Again, we applaud your continuing efforts to keep the speed 
     limit at 55 mph and stand ready to assist you in achieving 
     that goal.
           Sincerely,

                                            Thomas J. Donohue,

                                                     President and
     Chief Executive Officer.
                                                                    ____

                                    State Farm Insurance Cos.,

                                   Bloomington, IL, June 15, 1995.
     Senator Frank Lautenberg,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am writing to express the 
     support of the State Farm Insurance Companies for your 
     amendment to the National Highway System legislation, S. 440, 
     which would restore the National Maximum Speed Limit Law. 
     This is a public health and safety law that should be 
     preserved.
       The National Maximum Speed Limit, 23 U.S.C. Sec. 154, has 
     saved tens of thousands of lives on our highways since 1974. 
     Based on National Academy of Sciences' estimates, the 
     national speed limit has saved between 40,000 and 85,000 
     lives in the past two decades.
       The committee reported legislation eliminates the national 
     speed limit. We should proceed with caution in this area, 
     particularly on non-interstate primary and secondary roads 
     which have much higher fatality rates than interstate 
     highways. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration (NHTSA), one-third of all fatal crashes are 
     speed-related and one thousand people are killed every month 
     in speed-related crashes. NHTSA projects that elimination of 
     the national speed limit on non-rural interstates and non-
     interstate roads will increase deaths by 4,750 annually at a 
     cost of $15 billion. It is important that we have some 
     reasonable speed limits.
       For these reasons, we support your efforts to retain the 
     National Maximum Speed Limit law and to continue saving lives 
     on our highways.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Herman Brandau,
     Associate General Counsel.
                                                                    ____

                                                        GEICO,

                                    Washington, DC, June 15, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: Because excessive speed is a 
     leading cause of motor vehicle deaths and injuries, GEICO 
     advocates maintaining the current law concerning the federal 
     role in setting national speed limits. We believe that giving 
     states the discretion to set any speed limits they want will 
     result in increased deaths and injuries on our nation's 
     highways.
       GEICO is the sixth largest private passenger automobile 
     insurance company in the nation, insuring over 3.3 million 
     automobiles. Our assets total $4.8 billion and we have over 
     8,000 employees. As such we have a vested interest in 
     pointing out the relationship between safety and automobile 
     insurance.
       Higher speeds mean more serious injuries and deaths in 
     traffic crashes. From a humanitarian perspective alone, this 
     is solid justification for setting national speed limits. [[Page S 
     8642]] From a business perspective, more speed related crash 
     injuries and deaths mean higher insurance claim costs. Higher 
     claim costs result in higher premiums for our policyholders.
       We would like to see the federal government maintain a role 
     in highway safety. Given the reality of the political 
     situation, and the likelihood that S. 440, the National 
     Highway Systems bill, will generate extensive debate, we 
     commend your efforts to restore the federal role in setting 
     national speed limits. In addition, we urge you and your 
     Senate colleagues to oppose the repeal of Section 153, the 
     safety belt and motorcycle helmet incentive program.

                                              Janice S. Golec,

                                            Director, Business and
     Government Relations.
                                                                    ____

                                             Advocates for Highway


                                               and Auto Safety

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 1995.
     Senator Frank Lautenberg,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: I am writing to express the 
     support of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates) 
     for your amendment to the National Highway System 
     legislation, S. 440, which would restore the National Maximum 
     Speed Limit Law. This is a public health and safety law that 
     should be preserved.
       The National Maximum Speed Limit, 23 U.S.C. Sec. 154, has 
     saved tens of thousands of lives on our highways since 1974. 
     The National Academy of Sciences estimated that the 55 mile 
     per hour speed limit reduced fatality totals by two to four 
     thousand each year. Even with higher speed limits on rural 
     Interstates the national speed limit has saved between 40,000 
     and 85,000 lives in the past two decades.
       As you know, at higher speeds drivers have less time in 
     which to react properly and their vehicles need more distance 
     in which to come to a stop. Since speed is still a factor in 
     one-third of all highway crash fatalities, Advocates 
     continues to support the need for a reasonable and safe speed 
     limit.
       President Eisenhower began the federal presence on highways 
     by initiating the Interstate highway system. That federal 
     involvement will continue and expand with the advent of the 
     National Highway System. The U.S. highway system is no longer 
     a loose collection of state and local roads, but a national 
     network on which the entire country depends. It is folly, 
     both in terms of safety and the national economy, to 
     eliminate the federal role in regulating American highways.
       For these reasons we support your efforts to retain the 
     National Maximum Speed Limit law and to continue saving lives 
     on our highways.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Judith Lee Stone,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                      National Safety Council,

                                    Washington, DC, July 14, 1995.
     Senator Frank Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: The National Safety Council is 
     extremely concerned that S. 440, the National Highway System 
     bill, contains a provision to repeal the national maximum 
     speed limit law. We strongly support your amendment to 
     restore the 55-mph speed limit.
       Speed is a factor in a third of all highway crash 
     fatalities. The National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration estimates that repealing the national maximum 
     speed limit would result in 4,750 additional lives lost each 
     year in traffic crashes. It would also increase crash-related 
     medical and other costs by billions of dollars a year.
       Returning to the days when states could set their own speed 
     limits would reverse years of progress and jeopardize the 
     safety of all travellers. Experience shows that if speed 
     limits are increased to 65 and beyond, large numbers of 
     trucks and cars will jump to even higher speeds of 75, 80 and 
     85 mph.
       In the interest of public safety, the National Safety 
     Council appreciates and supports your efforts to preserve the 
     national maximum speed limit.
           Sincerely,
                                               Gerald F. Scannell,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                            American Public Health


                                                  Association,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 1995.
     Senator Frank Lautenberg,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: The American Public Health 
     Association supports the Lautenberg amendment which requires 
     states to maintain current law on posting speed limits of 55 
     and 65 M.P.H. depending on the road and road's location, but 
     provides a degree of flexibility in enforcement. APHA 
     recognizes the unique role of the federal government in 
     setting uniform standards for the roads that are largely 
     financed with federal funds.
       More importantly from our perspective, APHA also recognizes 
     the responsibility of the federal government to protect its 
     citizens. The following statistical information points out 
     the essential need for this amendment:
       One third of all traffic accidents are caused by excess 
     speed.
       Repeal of the national speed limit will increase the number 
     of traffic fatalities by 4,750 deaths per year at a cost of 
     $15 billion.
       We appreciate your efforts and wish you the best of luck.
           Sincerely,
                                    Fernando M. Trevino, PhD, MPH,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                      American Trauma Society,

                                Upper Marlboro, MD, June 13, 1995.
     Senator Frank R. Lautenberg,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: The American Trauma Society 
     supports your efforts through your Amendment to S. 440 to 
     have posting of maximum speed limits on public highways.
       We believe that limiting speed on highways is essential for 
     highway safety.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                 Harry Teter, Jr.,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____



                               Kemper National Insurance Cos.,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: The Kemper National Insurance 
     Companies supports the amendment you plan to offer on the 
     Senate floor to the National Highway Systems legislation to 
     prevent additional deaths and injuries on our nation's 
     highways caused by excessive speed. Under your approach 
     states would still post the 55 MPH or 65 MPH speed limit 
     depending upon the type of highway but enforcement would be 
     left to the states.
       As an automobile insurer, Kemper is a long time proponent 
     of highway safety. We saw deaths and injuries from automobile 
     accidents decline when the speed limit was lowered to 55 MPH 
     in the 1970s. Various studies have shown, including a recent 
     GAO study for the Senate Commerce Committee, that speed is a 
     big influence on risk of injury. The National Highway Traffic 
     Administration, based on the increased deaths and economic 
     costs which resulted from raising the speed limit to 65 MPH 
     on rural interstates, estimates that if the national speed 
     limit is repealed, deaths and injuries will increase by 4,750 
     deaths a year at a cost of $15 billion. Everyone helps pay 
     the economic costs of these deaths and injuries through 
     increased medical care costs, insurance costs, lost 
     productivity and lost taxes.
       A nationwide survey conducted this spring for the Advocates 
     for Highway and Auto Safety found that people do support 
     highway safety laws and 64.2% of Americans oppose states' 
     increasing the speed limit to more than 65 MPH on rural 
     interstates.
           Sincerely,

                                            Michael F. Dineen,

                                                   Vice President,
     Federal Relations.
                                                                    ____

                                               American College of


                                         Emergency Physicians,

                                    Washington, DC, June 14, 1995.
     Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lautenberg: I write on behalf of the over 
     17,700 members of the American College of Emergency 
     Physicians (ACEP). I want to offer ACEP's endorsement of your 
     proposed amendment to S. 440 regarding the national speed 
     limit. I understand that your amendment will reverse the 
     action taken by the Environment & Public Works Committee when 
     they passed S. 440 and included a repeal of the speed limit. 
     In addition, we strongly oppose any efforts to weaken Section 
     153--that section of ISTEA that deals with safety belt and 
     motorcycle helmet use, and urge your opposition to any 
     weakening language.
       ACEP is a national medical specialty society, and is 
     dedicated to improving the quality of emergency medical care 
     through continuing education, research and public awareness. 
     Emergency physicians are specialists trained to provide care 
     to patients, including medical, surgical, and trauma 
     services. Emergency physicians are the only medical 
     specialists required by law to provide care to all who seek 
     it, regardless of ability to pay. This role as ``front-line'' 
     providers has positioned emergency physicians as guardians of 
     quality, accessible health care for all populations. We have 
     seen first hand in our emergency departments those who have 
     been involved in vehicular accidents as a result of speeding, 
     and the non-use of safety and motorcycle helmets.
       Under the guise of promoting ``states' rights'' and 
     opposing ``unfunded mandates,'' proponents of eliminating 
     these encouragements to states to adopt safe and same highway 
     laws are risking the lives of thousands of our fellow 
     citizens. These laws save states and taxpayers billions of 
     dollars a year. Specifically, it is estimated that these four 
     safety programs together save over ten thousand lives and $19 
     billion taxpayer dollars every year. Repealing or weakening 
     them will result in more deaths and injuries on our nation's 
     roadways, and cost all of us billions of dollars annually in 
     increased insurance and medical costs, higher costs for 
     emergency services, lost productivity and tax revenue, and 
     direct costs to the Federal government in terms of those 
     unable to pay for emergency care.
       Without continued Federal leadership in these critical 
     areas of highway safety, we will see a return to inconsistent 
     and less effective state laws. Inevitably, there will be 
     greater loss of life and an increased financial [[Page S 
     8643]] burden on our society. We applaud you, Senator, in 
     your effort to restore a safe national speed limit. If we can 
     be of any assistance to you in this process, please do not 
     hesitate to call upon us.
           Sincerely,
                                            Richard V. Aghababian,
                                                        President.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I believe this is a reasonable and 
balanced amendment. All of us lose patience when we sit in traffic or 
leave late for an appointment and try to make up the time by just 
stepping on the gas a little bit more. But, if you know any family or 
in your own family have had a loss on a highway--whether it is from 
speeding or not the impact is the same at home, but when it is from 
speeding it is in many cases an avoidable death. And that is a tragedy 
beyond compare. We lose every year 40,000 people to highway 
fatalities--40,000 people. Something over 10,000 of those deaths are 
speed related on our highways.
  To repeat, if we continue along the path we are on, the removal of 
speed limits for trucks and cars, it is estimated that we will have 
almost 5,000 more deaths a year occurring.
  I know my colleagues, who see this as a States rights issue, do not, 
any more than I do, want to see people killed on our highways, people 
injured on our highways, or pay the expense for these accidents. But, 
nevertheless, this action is taken to remove constraints that we have 
in a lawful society, necessary to maintain our complex way of life. We 
are, after all--and I do not have to remind my colleagues here because 
it is part of their daily vocabulary--a nation founded as a nation of 
laws. That is what we say. We say we have laws so we can accommodate 
the needs of the majority of our citizens. Over 80 percent of our 
citizens said they want the Federal Government involved in auto and 
highway safety issues.
  So, Mr. President, I hope in this dash for States rights we continue 
to focus not just on the States rights but on the individual rights 
that each of us has to protect our families, our children, our spouses, 
our brothers and sisters, and say the few minutes time gained is not 
worth a single life. I hope that is what the conclusion is going to be.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, to exempt heavy trucks from the 
repeal of the national speed limit contained in S. 440. In other words, 
commercial vehicles will continue to be subject to a national speed 
limit. Given the havoc that one 18-wheeler or cement truck or other 
heavy vehicle can cause if its driver loses control or is involved in 
an accident, I believe this is necessary protection for the motoring 
public. I will vote for this amendment because it will have a real 
effect on people's lives. Also, and more importantly, it is 
enforceable. Should States choose to ignore it, penalties will be 
imposed.
  For these same reasons I am unable to support the amendment by my 
dear friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, whose courageous 
leadership on this issue I have long respected and followed. His 
amendment would maintain a nationwide posted speed limit but give the 
States complete flexibility in enforcing the limits, without fear of 
suffering Federal funding penalties for failure to do so, as under 
current law. To me, this provision would be more shell than substance. 
Either our country should have a nationwide speed limit on interstates 
and Federal-aid highways that is enforceable, or we should not. What we 
definitely should not have is a hortatory nationwide speed limit, 
without teeth. I fear that will only lead to further disrespect for 
speed limits in particular and law in general, and we cannot afford 
such further erosion.
  I am well aware of the relationship between speed limits and the 
number and cost of traffic fatalities and injuries to families and to 
our economy. I certainly believe speed limits make sense in terms of 
saving lives and the related health and lost productivity costs. Higher 
speeds also burn more fuel per mile and thereby create more pollution 
per passenger mile. But speed limits do not make sense if they are not 
taken seriously because they are not enforced. That is the practical 
effect of the Lautenberg amendment and why I am reluctantly compelled 
to oppose the Senator's amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I wonder if the sponsor of the amendment 
would mind setting it aside just for a minute or so, while we dispose 
of some other business here?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Not at all.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we set aside the 
Lautenberg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1429

  (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the Federal-
             State funding relationship for transportation)

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Mack and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for Mr. Mack, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1429.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     SEC.  . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE FEDERAL-STATE 
                   FUNDING RELATIONSHIP FOR TRANSPORTATION.

       Findings:
       (1) the designation of high priority roads through the 
     National Highway System is required by the Intermodal Surface 
     Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and will ensure the 
     continuation of funding which would otherwise be withheld 
     from the states.
       (2) The Budget Resolution supported the re-evaluation of 
     all federal programs to determine which programs are more 
     appropriately a responsibility of the States.
       (3) debate on the appropriate role of the federal 
     government in transportation will occur in the re-
     authorization of ISTEA.
       Therefore, it is the Sense of the Senate that the 
     designation of the NHS does not assume the continuation or 
     the elimination of the current federal-state relationship nor 
     preclude a re-evaluation of the federal-state relationship in 
     transportation.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this is an amendment that has been agreed 
to. It is a sense of the Senate. I improperly described it as an 
amendment--it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. It has been agreed 
to by both sides. I ask for its approval.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1429) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I thank the Chair and thank the distinguished Senator 
from New Jersey.
  I ask we return back to the Lautenberg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1428

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have not sought the yeas and nays 
on the amendment. I take it, it is proper to register our interest in a 
rollcall vote? I ask the manager whether it will be in order? The Reid 
amendment, I understand, is going to be the first amendment voted on. 
Were the yeas and nays agreed to on that?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Yes, the yeas and nays were agreed to on the Reid 
amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
Lautenberg amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes on 
the Lautenberg amendment.
  Mr. President, all of us in our country want to have safe highways. I 
do not think there is anybody who even entertains the thought, either 
in the U.S. Congress or in the States, whoever, of asking for 
legislation which would have the effect of making our highways less 
safe. All of us listen to the statistics cited by the Senator from New 
Jersey about how fatalities on our highways have some relation to 
speed. There is no doubt about that. [[Page S 8644]] Fatalities on 
highways are also related to alcohol. There are a lot of factors which 
determine to some degree where the cause falls for fatalities, highway 
fatalities in our country.
  The amendment of the Senator from New Jersey basically strikes a 
provision in the bill now before us. The bill now before us says: 
States, you decide what your speed limits should be. Why? The committee 
made the determination that States have a pretty good idea what 
conditions in those States are compared with other States. The 
committee also believes that State legislatures and Governors care 
about people in their own States and that they are going to set a speed 
limit which they think makes sense in their own State, taking into 
consideration the safety of the people in their State as well as 
conditions in a particular State, what the traffic is, how much space 
is in the State, what the population density might be.
  The Senator from New Jersey comes from a very populous State. I think 
the population density in New Jersey is about a thousand people per 
square mile. The Senator from New Jersey will remember when I invited 
him to visit my State of Montana, which has a population of about six 
people per square mile. We were up in an airplane, flying at night. We 
were flying from Great Falls, MT, over to Custer, MT, in a twin-engine 
plane. The Senator from New Jersey turned to me for an explanation and 
said, ``Max, where are the people? Where are the lights?''
  It was because there were not very many people. There were not very 
many lights down beneath our plane because there are not very many 
people in our State compared with the State of New Jersey.
  I might say, therein lies one of the major differences between our 
States. And therein lies the reason for this provision in this bill. 
And therein lies the basic reason why adoption of the amendment by my 
very good friend, the Senator from New Jersey, would not be wise.
  The argument by the proponents of this amendment essentially has two 
assumptions. One assumption is that there are not States that will also 
be able to set speed limits. Just because Uncle Sam decides there is 
not to be a national speed limit does not mean there is not going to be 
a speed limit in the States. We still have States. We have State 
legislatures. We have the governing bodies in States which will 
determine what the speed limit will be.
  There is another assumption in the argument made by the proponents of 
this amendment, that we do not trust the States. We do not trust the 
States to do what is right for their own people or for people traveling 
through the State.
  I think in this day and age, State legislatures and Governors have a 
good idea what makes sense in their States. They are going to want to 
protect their people. They are going to want to have conditions on the 
highways that are safe.
  I trust the States. I trust the State legislatures to do the right 
thing for their States, which will, therefore, affect not only the 
people living in the States but also people traveling through their 
State.
  I would guess, also, that if this bill becomes law--and I very much 
hope that it does without the Lautenberg amendment--that in all 
probability State legislatures are going to keep the same speed limit 
that now exists; that is, in some parts of some States it is going to 
be 55 miles an hour; in some parts of other States it will be 65 miles 
an hour. They will probably keep the present law. There will be some 
instances in the more thinly populated States where there are not a lot 
of people but an awful lot of miles of highway and not a lot of cars 
that they may make an adjustment. They may increase, as it should be 
increased, I think, in some parts of our country. But that is still the 
State's decision. Under this bill it will still be a State decision. I 
think the time has come in 1995 where it is proper for the U.S. 
Congress to trust the States and say, We trust you, you know what is 
right.
  For that reason, I urge Members to not vote in favor of the 
Lautenberg amendment but rather to vote against it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Lautenberg-DeWine amendment which my colleague from New Jersey just 
offered.
  Let us talk for a moment about what this amendment will actually do. 
Our amendment would retain the current speed limit law while at the 
same time giving the States the flexibility they need in regard to the 
enforcement of the law, as the Senator from New Jersey has very well 
explained. This is really a compromise. It is saying to the States that 
while we believe the roads are traveled by people from all over the 
country--all you have to do is to stop at any rest area on one of our 
interstates in Ohio or any other State and you will see how many cars 
are from out of State. So, clearly there is a national priority, and 
clearly this is a national policy issue. But while retaining that, we 
also say that Congress is not going to micromanage this. We are not 
going to require these reports from the States. We are not going to 
look over the shoulders of the States. So it seems to me, Mr. 
President, it is a reasonable compromise.
  The bill, as has been pointed out very well, totally repeals 20 years 
of history, 20 years of experience, and says that basically we have not 
learned anything in the last 20 years because for 20 years we have seen 
on our highways lives saved because of what Congress did originally in 
1973. As my colleague from New Jersey has pointed out, it was almost, 
as we would say, an unintended consequence because the law was 
originally passed because of the energy crisis that this country faced. 
But, lo and behold, when the statistics came in the next year on all of 
the fatalities, guess what? We found that thousands of lives had been 
saved. We found that numerous families had been spared the agony, the 
horror, and the tragedy of burying a loved one who had been killed on 
our highways.
  Mr. President, I talked about 20 years of experience. The facts are 
in. The facts are clear. The facts are conclusive. Let us go back to 
1973. In 1973, 55,000 people died in this country from car-related 
fatalities--55,000 people--which affected 55,000 families. In 1974, 
Congress established the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. That year the 
highway fatalities dropped by 16 percent. Fatalities dropped from 
55,000 in 1973 to 46,000 in 1974. In my own State of Ohio, according to 
the Ohio Department of Public Safety, there was a 20-percent decrease 
in fatalities on Ohio roads over this 12-month period of time. 
According to the National Academy of Sciences, the national speed limit 
law saved somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 lives every year; as many 
as 80,000 lives since 1974.
  Let us move forward in this history to 1987. When the mandatory speed 
limit was amended in 1987 to allow the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit on 
some of the rural interstates, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration found that the fatalities on those highways were then 30 
percent more than had been projected based on historical trends.
  According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, increasing 
the speed limit to 65 miles per hour on rural interstates cost an 
additional 500 lives every year. Mr. President, those highways are 
probably among the safest roads in America. What is going to happen 
when we extend that speed limit in rural areas to the more dangerous 
urban interstates in this country? I think we know what is going to 
happen. History tells us. Statistics tell us. If we were to see the 
same increase, a 30-percent increase, on the more dangerous urban 
interstates that we see on the less traveled, less dangerous rural 
interstates, the U.S. Department of Transportation estimates that an 
additional 4,750 people would die every year.
  I believe this is clearly not the direction we need to go in the area 
of highway safety. We need to go in the opposite direction because 
there obviously are far too many Americans dying on America's highways 
in this country.
  In 1993, in Ohio a total of 1,482 people were killed in car 
accidents. Over 20 percent of those were speed related. Nationwide, it 
is estimated that one-third of all highway fatalities are caused 
because of excess speed.
  Mr. President the old adage had it right. Speed does in fact kill. 
Everyone in this Chamber knows that. Even if [[Page S 8645]] interstate 
highways were designed for 70-mile-per-hour travel, people are not 
designed to survive crashes at that speed. As speed increases, driver 
reaction time, the time that driver has, decreases and the distance the 
driver needs if he is trying to stop increases. Excessive speed 
increases the total stopping distance, the driver's reaction time, plus 
the braking distance. Say a truck is overturned 290 feet ahead of a 
driver. A driver approaching it at 65 miles per hour would not have 
time to stop. It would take that driver so long to react and then to 
brake the car that he or she would still be going 35 miles per hour 
when they reached that truck. That is a major crash.
  Let us say, on the other hand, the driver is approaching the truck at 
60 miles per hour. That driver will have a little more time but still 
not enough to avoid a crash. They would crash into the truck at 22 
miles per hour. Mr. President, let us take a third example. A driver 
approaching at 55 miles per hour would have time to slow down and to 
stop. When speeds go above 55 miles per hour, every 10-mile-per-hour 
increase doubles the force of the injury-causing impact.
  Let me say that again. It is a phenomenal figure, I think. When 
speeds go above 55 miles per hour, every 10-mile-per-hour increase 
doubles the force of the injury-causing impact. This means that at 65 
miles per hour a crash is twice as severe as a crash at 55 miles per 
hour. A crash at 75 miles per hour is four times more severe.
  Mr. President, a speed limit of over 55 miles per hour is a known 
killer. The awareness of this fact is growing. Just yesterday in my 
office I received a letter from the executive director of the National 
Save the Kids Campaign urging the adoption of this particular 
amendment. We need, I think, to face the facts about the speed limit 
and to do the right thing. It is this part of this bill.
  Mr. President, recently in Ohio the director of the Ohio Department 
of Public Safety, Charles Shipley, testified on this issue. I would 
like to read briefly what he said. His words are very simple but very 
powerful. But before I tell you what Chuck Shipley, the director of our 
department of highway safety, said, I want to tell you who he is. He is 
not just some bureaucrat. He is not just some political appointee. 
Chuck Shipley for many years was a highway patrolman. For many years 
Chuck Shipley had the duty of investigating crashes. Chuck Shipley had 
the horrible responsibility, as most members of our patrol ultimately 
do, of talking to a family informing them that their child or their 
sister or their brother had died. So Chuck Shipley knows what he is 
talking about. He has been there. He has seen it.
  This is what the Ohio Director of Public Safety had to say. As I 
said, his words are simple and powerful.
 He was talking about another piece of legislation in Ohio but similar.

       This legislation is not in the interest of safety. The few 
     minutes that could be saved will be paid for with injuries 
     and with lives.

  Mr. President, that is the exact truth, and we know it. That is why I 
strongly support this amendment. That is why I also strongly support 
Senator Reid's amendment.
  In the last few years, one of the things that politicians and people 
in public office have talked about is the phrase ``ideas have 
consequences.'' I think that is true. Just as ideas have consequences, 
votes in this Chamber have consequences as well. There are many times 
when we come to the floor and cast votes where we think we are 
benefiting society, where we think we can project in years ahead that 
something we are doing is going to be of help to people. This is one 
time where we know, based on the past history, based on common sense, 
what the results are going to be. We do not know how many more people 
will die, but statistics clearly show us, history clearly shows us that 
if we change the law as this bill does, more people will die on our 
highways, and that is the simple truth.
  I believe that the compromise my colleague from New Jersey and I have 
crafted is, in fact, a reasonable compromise. It is a compromise that 
takes into consideration the concern every Member has for our loved 
ones, the people we represent, but also balances that with an 
understanding of where this country is going, as it should, to return 
more authority and more power to the States. It is a compromise, but it 
is a compromise that I submit, if we pass it, will save lives. The 
evidence is abundantly clear.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Ohio for 
his statements. He comes from a background in law, served as a 
prosecutor, and I think certainly has the qualifications and the 
knowledge to understand what happens when speed is permitted to 
accelerate at the will and the whim of a driver.
  My friend from Montana and I often joke about my visit to beautiful 
Montana, and since I have been for a long time an outdoor person and 
hiker and spend time out there, I am always attracted, enchanted by the 
magnificence of the mountains of Montana, the beautiful countryside, 
and of course I know the sparseness of the population there but remind 
my colleague, since he always remembers the story about my looking for 
signs of life on the ground and not seeing them when we flew over 
Montana, that in New Jersey we have more horses per square acre than 
any State in the country. So we live with the wild western life as well 
as our heavy population density.
  But, Mr. President, I say this to you, that an incinerated vehicle, 
whether it is in Oklahoma or Montana or Wyoming or North Carolina, is 
no less a tragedy than it is in New Jersey or any of those States. The 
families still feel the same pain when they lose a loved one. The 
community still feels the absence of that citizen when they hear about 
it, when they know about it.
  I recently lost a good friend up in Maine, a good friend of mine, a 
very close friend of our former majority leader, Senator Mitchell, when 
he was hit head on by a car passing at a very high speed on a two-lane 
road. The other vehicle was so incinerated that they had to take it to 
the capital of the State, Augusta, ME, so that they could get the 
remnants of the bodies out of the vehicle and decide who these people 
were, the driver and his passenger.
  Mr. President, we have many responsibilities in this place of ours 
but none--none--exceed that of protecting life and limb of our 
citizens. We maintain a huge defense apparatus to do that. We invest--
insufficiently in my view, but we invest--large numbers in our 
infrastructure--highways, rail, aviation. We have the best aviation 
system in all of the world because we have put money in it. And we have 
said that even if there is a delay at your airport, too bad, because 
that takes second position to that of safety. So they spread the 
distance between flights, and they make sure that airplanes, too many 
airplanes, are not in the same area in the sky at the same time.
  Safety. Safety is the primary concern. And so what we are saying here 
is that we are interested also in safety.
  We talk about raising speed limits, but I have seen in my travels out 
West or in mountain country runouts for trucks. Now, sometimes it is 
because there is a failure in the driving system, but other times it is 
because the driver is going too fast, his judgment was faulty, and he 
has to seek the high-risk opportunity to go up a truck runout. If you 
look at some of those things, you know that when it is snowing on the 
ground or the truck is going too fast, there has to be a prayerful 
moment for the driver.
  Mr. President, I have a report here that is developed by NHTSA. Its 
source is the fatal accident reporting system. It is a segment of the 
structure. They project a 30-percent increase in fatalities if we 
remove the speed limits. When we look at some of the States that are 
represented in the Chamber at this moment, a State like North Carolina 
can expect the fatalities within a year to increase by 243 persons if 
we remove the speed limits as proposed--243 people in the State of 
North Carolina.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. Did the Senator say according to NHTSA there would be a 
30-percent increase in fatalities?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. A 30-percent increase in the fatalities that occur 
from excessive speed right now, yes.
[[Page S 8646]]

  Mr. NICKLES. There are 40,000, 41,000 auto fatalities.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator will permit me to respond, 40,000 
total fatalities. Some of those, many of those, maybe 30,000, 25,000 
are not related to speed but related to other things, perhaps ice, 
snow, faulty vehicles, other conditions, grade crossings, et cetera. 
But those attributed to excessive speed range about 14,000 persons a 
year, and NHTSA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 
projects a 30-percent increase if speed limits are removed.
  In Oklahoma, for instance, it would go from 388 persons up by 110, 
with the projected increase of 30 percent.
  So I think the case can be made, Mr. President--once again, I want it 
to be clearly understood I do not think there is anyone in this room, 
any Senator or any individual in this room who is saying abandon 
restraint regardless of consequence; not at all. I would never suggest 
it. My colleagues are too intelligent, too caring, and work too hard to 
protect the public. But in this case, I think it is an error to simply 
resort to the States rights argument and say that we ought not to have 
any Federal restrictions.
  I submit, as I said before, the Federal Government is involved in 
aviation. We have the safest system anyplace on the globe. And so it is 
with many other parts of our society. But in this case, I think it is 
essential because the Federal Government makes the investment, the 
Federal Government does direct taxpayer money to our infrastructure 
development, and we will assume not only the tragedy and loss of life 
but can expect an increase of $15 billion a year in cost to the 
community and the Government as a result of these accidents.
  And so, Mr. President, once again, I appreciate the support and the 
help of my colleague from Ohio and hope that we will be successful.
  Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Lautenberg-
DeWine amendment and urge my colleagues to vote no.
  I might ask the sponsors of the amendment, Do we have a time set for 
the vote on Lautenberg?
  I understand from the manager of the bill, Senator Baucus, we do not 
have a time set for that vote, but I would just urge my colleagues when 
we do vote on it to vote no.
  I compliment the committee for taking their position. The committee's 
position was not to raise speed limits. The bill that we have before us 
does not raise speed limits.
  It allows the States to set the speed limits. There is a big 
difference. Some of my colleagues are assuming that we will have a 
national speed limit, if this bill passes as it is, of 65 or 70 miles 
an hour. That is not the case. The case is which jurisdiction of 
government should properly make this decision? Should it be decided by 
the Federal Government and mandated by the Federal Government? Or 
should it be decided by the States? That is what the vote is: Who 
should set the national speed limit or who should set speed limits. 
Should it be a national mandate or should we allow States to make the 
decision?
  To have individuals talking about a 30-percent increase in fatalities 
due to speeding, I think, is hogwash. What makes you think the States 
are going to increase the speed limit? Maybe they will if it is 
strongly supported in their States and the State highway administration 
thinks it is safe. Maybe they will.
  Mr. DeWINE. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. NICKLES. Let me make some more comments and then I will. They 
say, if this bill passes, 4,750 people are going to die every year. I 
think that comment is absurd. Are we taking a position that we need to 
have the National Government mandate speed limits because States do not 
care about safety, States do not care about fatalities? Again, I find 
that absurd.
  I go back to the Constitution on occasion, and I read in the 10th 
amendment, it says:

       The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
     Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
     reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  Why not allow the States and the people to make this decision? Our 
forefathers, I think, would be shocked to find out that we have 
national speed limits, we have the Federal Government making all kinds 
of constraints and saying, ``Well, if you don't comply, you don't get 
your money.''
  The money was raised within the States from a State-generated tax on 
gasoline primarily to fund the highway program. That money is sent to 
Washington, DC, and before Washington, DC, will send it back, you have 
to comply and if you do not comply, you do not get the money. Uncle Sam 
is putting the strings in, Uncle Sam, big Government, saying, ``States, 
you must do this, and if you don't, you won't get your money back or we 
are going to withhold some money.'' We are telling the States, the 
State legislatures and State Governors, ``Well, we don't care, we're 
going to mandate, we're going to tell you exactly what you have to 
do.''
  To get to this figure of 4,750 people I think is just ludicrous. Look 
at the statistics. In 1965, we had over 50,000--about 51,000--
fatalities on our highways. In 1974, when we imposed the national speed 
limit, it had already dropped to 45,000. It declined fairly 
consistently throughout, and today the number of fatalities is a little 
over 40,000. There has been a consistent decline for a lot of different 
reasons: automobiles are built safer, we have airbags, we have more 
divided highways--there are many different reasons. Some people are 
driving slower; some people are driving faster.
  The real issue we are going to vote on today is not what the national 
speed limit should be but if the States should make the decision or 
should we have it mandated by the Federal Government. That is the 
decision. The committee properly recommended that the States should 
make the decision.
  Mr. President, I am going to have printed in the Record an article 
from the Washington Times by Stephen Chapman entitled ``Clocking the 
55-Mile-an-Hour Debate.'' It mentions that opponents are going to say, 
``We are concerned about safety.'' I am concerned about safety. I have 
children who are driving on the highways. I want those highways to be 
safe. I just happen to think the State of Oklahoma or the State of 
Virginia is just as concerned about safety as the Federal Government, 
and maybe those States will want to increase the speed limits, if they 
think it is safe and prudent to do so, if the highway is built well. Or 
maybe they will not. Maybe they will be convinced that if we have 
increased speed limits, we will have an increased number of fatalities.
  If they do not want to increase the speed limit, that is their 
decision, and I can abide by it. For people to say we did have over 
50,000 fatalities in the sixties and then 45,000 in 1974 and now it is 
40,000, but if we do not have a national speed limit, we assume it is 
going to jump up to 45,000, makes no sense whatsoever. That is not 
sustainable. For the national highway transportation people to make 
that kind of allegation I think is ludicrous. It shows they are against 
the amendment. Well, this administration is for more Government. They 
like the idea of the Federal Government making decisions instead of the 
States making decisions.
  Many Governors do not agree, Democrat and Republican Governors. Mr. 
President, I have numerous letters from Governors, from a variety of 
States, Democrats and Republicans, who are supportive of allowing the 
States to make these decisions.
  Lawton Chiles, a former Senator and now Governor of the State of 
Florida, says:

       Recognizing the national maximum speed limit is one of 19 
     mandates in current Federal law which threatens to sanction 
     States with the loss of transportation funds, the State of 
     Florida would clearly prefer an incentive approach over 
     mandated activities.

  What we have right now is a mandated activity.
  I have a letter from the Governor of the State of Maine, Angus King, 
who says:

       As Governor, I am striving to not only gain empowerment for 
     the State of Maine from Federal restrictions but to pass that 
     right to Maine's citizens who truly know best what their 
     needs are. Therefore, I do support your proposed legislation 
     and would recommend its passage.

  The proposed legislation is to allow the States to set the speed 
limits.
  Governor Engler of the State of Michigan says:


[[Page S 8647]]

       My administration is a strong proponent of States rights 
     and an active opponent of unfunded Federal mandates.

  This is an unfunded mandate.
  Continuing with Governor Engler's letter:

       Speeding is a factor in one-third of all fatal crashes. I 
     believe, however, that speed variance and violators are the 
     major causes, not the setting of higher speed limits.
       In addition, I believe that individual States are better 
     prepared to identify safe speeds for the roadways than the 
     Federal Government.

  That is the point I am making. I know the Governors are just as 
concerned with safety and fatalities on their roadways as this body is, 
as the Federal Government is.
  I have a letter from the State of Montana, Governor Racicot. He talks 
about Montana being a large, sparsely populated State with hundreds of 
highway miles through rural areas:
  The Governor writes,

       The diverse terrain and widely varying population across 
     our State make enforcing a single speed limit based solely on 
     the type of highway difficult, if not impossible. And a speed 
     limit set with large eastern cities in mind often doesn't 
     make sense in Montana.

  I think he is correct.
  I have additional letters from the Governor from the State of South 
Carolina, Governor Beasley and the Governor from the State of New 
Hampshire, Governor Merrill. I will just read this one paragraph from 
Governor Merrill:

       In addition to feeling the States should set their own 
     speed limits, I also believe motorist compliance, or 
     noncompliance, with those speed limits should not be related 
     to the withholding of construction funds awarded to 
     individual States.

  I think he is correct.
  I have a letter from Fife Symington, Governor of the State of 
Arizona, a letter of support from the Governor of the State of 
Tennessee, Governor Sundquist. I will read one comment:

       I agree with you that authority regarding speed limits 
     should not be imposed by the Washington bureaucracy, but 
     should be regulated by each State who understands their own 
     transportation needs and who knows what restrictions are best 
     for their citizens.

  I have a letter from Governor Keating of my State of Oklahoma. He 
goes on:

       As you know, Federal mandates and penalties for 
     noncompliance are a constant threat to Oklahoma's ability to 
     build, maintain and manage highways effectively.

  Also, a letter from Governor Glendening of Maryland:

       Sanctions which reduce critically needed transportation 
     funds are counterproductive.

  Again, I think he is right. I happen to think the Governor of 
Maryland, the Governor of Oklahoma, and the Governor of Montana are 
just as concerned--frankly, I think they are more concerned--than we 
are with highway safety within their States.
  Again, I want to make clear that all of my colleagues are aware of 
the fact this bill we have before us, reported out of the committee, 
does not raise the national speed limit to 65, does not raise it to 70, 
does not raise it to 80. It says, ``States, you make the decision.'' We 
have a little bit of confidence in the States. We think that is a 
decision that is more properly reserved to the States than the Federal 
Government. Very plain, very simple.
  The people who are proposing this amendment obviously feel the 
Federal Government should make the mandate and enforce the mandate and 
say, ``If you do not comply with posting, we are going to take your 
money away. If you do not comply with enforcement''--now under the 
proposal before us, under the Lautenberg proposal, it says you have to 
post the speed limit at 55, the national speed limit, but you do not 
really have to comply with it, we are going to leave compliance to the 
States.
  I think that is going to create a contempt for the law. Why not allow 
the States to set the speeds limits, post the speed limits and enforce 
the speed limits? To end up saying we are not going to have any 
sanctions on enforcement but you are going to have to post limits I 
think is a mistake. Therefore, if the State of Montana wants to have a 
speed limit of 65 they could legally have zero fine or penalty for 
exceeding the speed limit. That is going to create contempt for the 
law.
  Maybe it is an effort to compromise, I do not know. I think it is a 
mistake. I think it is defying States saying, we do not think you can 
do the job; we are going to do it for you. We are going to tell you 
that you must do that. I disagree with that. I think the forefathers 
and the 10th amendment of the Constitution says all rights and powers 
are reserved to the people and the States. Our forefathers are right.
  Why do we come in and micromanage and dictate what they must do to 
get their money back, money that came from constituents in those 
States? I might also mention that many States do not get their money 
back. A lot of States are so-called donor States: They pay a dollar in 
taxes to Washington, DC, and get 90 cents back. They are shortchanged 
from the start and then with the 90 cents they get back, they must 
comply with a lot of Federal regulations. Complying with the Federal 
speed limit is just one such mandate.
  I might also mention that it is a national speed limit law that is 
not complied with. I am not shocking anybody by saying that. But if you 
drive 55 on a lot of our highways around the country today, you will 
find that you are not going with the prevailing speed. Again, I am not 
one that says the speed limit should be higher; I am one who says the 
States should make that decision. The States should make that decision, 
not the Federal Government.
  So I urge my colleagues, when we vote a little later, to vote ``no'' 
on the Lautenberg-DeWine amendment.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to print one additional article in the 
Record. The article is in today's Washington Times entitled, ``Why Do 
We Still Have to Drive 55?''
  I will just read this one paragraph:

       For example, after Congress gave the States the authority 
     to raise the speed limit on selected rural interstates to 65 
     mph in 1987, a study done by the American Automobile 
     Association in 1991 found that the fatalities in these 
     regions fell by 3 percent, to 5 percent overall--thus belying 
     the conventional wisdom that ``speed kills.''

  The author states in a further paragraph:

       ``Fifty-five'' is almost universally despised, fosters 
     contempt for legitimate authority and, paradoxically, 
     probably increases the number of accidents because frustrated 
     drivers tailgate, swerve and pull other maneuvers to get 
     around the car ahead that's dawdling in the fast lane.

  I ask unanimous consent the two articles, as well as the letters from 
several Governors in support of allowing the States to make the 
decision, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 State of Florida,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                    Tallahassee, FL, May 19, 1995.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Don: Thank you for your letter concerning legislation 
     you have introduced to repeal the National Maximum Speed 
     Limit.
       Recognizing that the National Maximum Speed Limit is one of 
     the 19 mandates in current federal law which threatens to 
     sanction states with a loss of transportation funds, the 
     State of Florida would clearly prefer an incentive approach 
     over mandated activities. With regard to the mandates 
     referenced above, for the most part Florida would not alter 
     appreciably our practices if these mandates were rescinded. 
     Notably exceptions would be outdoor advertising and control 
     of junk yards. Also, the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Management System requirements could 
     become very costly and should be made optional, or certainly 
     less rigid.
       Concerning the National Maximum Speed Limit mandate, one 
     additional option not altogether unlike your approach, would 
     be to set one national maximum--say 65, 70 or 75 mph. States 
     would then be free to set speed limits as they best determine 
     based on traffic and safety analysis with an upper cap 
     already established. The urban/rural split between speed 
     limits contained in the existing mandate is somewhat 
     arbitrary and inconsistent with accepted methodology for 
     setting speed limits, and should be dropped. Turning to a 
     slightly broader subject, it is my view that the 
     transportation funding needs of donor states like Florida and 
     Oklahoma must inevitably be addressed. One solution worthy of 
     possible consideration is a modified turnback, whereby only a 
     limited federal highway role would be maintained. The federal 
     gas tax would be reduced accordingly and individual states 
     given the option of passing a replacement state gas tax. Form 
     a variety of standpoints, this concept would seem to be 
     attractive.
       Again, thank you for your correspondence and I would 
     welcome the opportunity to have our two states work together 
     in the future for our mutual benefit.
       With kind regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                    Lawton Chiles.
     [[Page S 8648]]
     
     
                                                                    ____
                                                   State of Maine,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                         Augusta, ME, May 3, 1995.
     Hon. Don Nickels,
     Oklahoma City, OK.
       Dear Senator Nickles: Please allow me to apologize for the 
     delay in getting back to you. Thank you for your letter 
     concerning the introduction of a bill to repeal the National 
     Maximum Speed Limit.
       It has been our experience in the State of Maine since the 
     increase in the maximum limit from 55 MPH to 65 MPH, that 
     compliance is no longer an issue. However, as you noted, the 
     potential loss of highway funds is indeed a penalty which 
     would severely impact our ability to properly fulfill our 
     responsibility to Maine citizens and their transportation 
     needs.
       As Governor, I am striving to not only gain empowerment for 
     the State of Maine from Federal restrictions but to pass on 
     that right to Maine's citizens who truly know best what their 
     needs are. Therefore, I do support your proposed legislation 
     and would recommend its passage.
       Thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond to your 
     request for Maine's views on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                               Angus S. King, Jr.,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                                State of Michigan,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                      Lansing, MI, April 21, 1995.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: This is in response to your letter 
     requesting my support and views on your bill to repeal the 
     National Maximum Speed Limit. My administration is a strong 
     proponent of states rights and an active opponent of unfunded 
     federal mandates.
       Speeding is a factor in one third of all fatal crashes. I 
     believe, however, that speed variance and violators are the 
     major causes, not the setting of higher speed limits.
       In addition, I believe that individual states are better 
     prepared to identify safe speeds for their roadways than the 
     federal government. If the National Maximum Speed Limit 
     restrictions are repealed at the federal level, all states 
     must consider increasing fines and banning radar detectors 
     wherever the higher limits are allowed in order to give law 
     enforcement the tools necessary to mitigate any potential 
     increase in deaths and injuries. Persons who violate the 
     higher speed limits do present a substantial public safety 
     hazard.
       Given the above reasons, I support your efforts with 
     reservation. Thank you for the opportunity to share my 
     thoughts with you.
           Sincerely,
                                                      John Engler,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                                 State of Montana,


                                       Office of the Governor,
                                          Helena, MT, May 5, 1995.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senator,
     Oklahoma City, OK.
       Dear Senator Nickles: I agree with your position that a 
     nationally-imposed maximum speed limit is inappropriate in 
     many states, including Montana.
       Montana, as you know, is a large, sparsely-populated state 
     with hundreds of highway miles through rural areas. In 
     addition, our population is greater in mountainous western 
     Montana than in the prairie areas of the eastern half of the 
     state. But even our most populated areas are rural when 
     compared to cities in the eastern part of our country.
       The diverse terrain and widely-varying population across 
     our state make enforcing a single speed limit based solely on 
     the type of highway difficult, if not impossible. And a speed 
     limit set with large eastern cities in mind often doesn't 
     make sense in Montana.
       I agree with you, Senator Nickles, that the role of 
     assigning reasonable speed limits should be returned to the 
     states and I support your legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Marc Racicot,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                          State of South Carolina,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                      Columbia, SC, April 3, 1995.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: Thank you for your recent letter 
     regarding your bill which would repeal the National Maximum 
     Speed Limit and return to the states the authority to 
     regulate their own speed limits. I appreciate the opportunity 
     to provide input regarding this legislation.
       I believe the federal government should empower states with 
     more responsibility and allow more control to make decisions 
     affecting our futures. Should your legislation become law and 
     we are given the authority of regulation, we will carefully 
     assess our present speed limits to determine if changes may 
     be necessary.
       Again, thank you for sharing this information. Please do 
     not hesitate to contact me if I may be of assistance in the 
     future.
           Sincerely,
     David M. Beasley.
                                                                    ____

                                           State of New Hampshire,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                         Concord, NH, May 9, 1995.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: I am pleased that you have introduced 
     legislation to repeal the National Maximum Speed Limit. I am 
     in agreement that states should be empowered to set speed 
     limits that are appropriate for their highways, and the 
     responsibility to dictate speed limits should not reside at 
     the federal level.
       In addition to feeling that states should set their own 
     speed limits, I also believe motorist compliance, or non-
     compliance, with those speed limits should not be related to 
     the withholding of construction funds awarded to individual 
     states. Furthermore, states should not be penalized by 
     withholding their construction funds because they have 
     neither a universal seat belt use law, nor a motorcycle 
     helmet use law. This currently exists under the provisions of 
     the Section 153 transfer funds. My feelings on this subject 
     are further stated in the attached letter dated January 27, 
     1994 to Frederico Pena, Secretary of Transportation.
       We in the Granite State are very proud of our highway 
     safety record which is possible only through the united 
     efforts of local, State and county entities. In 1994, the 
     lowest number of people died on New Hampshire highways in 
     over 30 years, and we are striving to improve that record.
       In closing, let me say that I support your legislation, as 
     well as any efforts which have the goal of returning to the 
     states the power to actively manage their own affairs.
           Very truly yours,
                                                  Stephen Merrill,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                                 State of Arizona,


                                             Executive Office,

                                      Phoenix, AZ, April 13, 1995.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: Your legislation repealing the 
     National Maximum Speed Limit will be a step in restoring the 
     ability of states to set and maintain speed and safety 
     standards without having to fear sanctions from Washington, 
     D.C. You have my full support in your endeavors to restore 
     responsibility to state governments.
       If you need any help, do not hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Fife Symington,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

                                               State of Tennessee,


                                                State Capitol,

                                    Nashville, TN, April 18, 1995.
     Senator Don Nickles,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Don: Thank you for your letter advising me about the 
     legislation that you have introduced that will repeal the 
     National Maximum Speed Limit and return to the states the 
     authority to regulate their own speed limits.
       I strongly support this legislation that will further 
     empower states with the responsibility to make their own 
     decisions with regards to speed limits. The National Maximum 
     Speed Limit is a part of federal law which threatens states 
     with the loss of their badly needed highway funds. I agree 
     with you that authority regarding speed limits should not be 
     imposed by the Washington bureaucracy, but should be 
     regulated by each state who understands their own 
     transportation needs and who knows what restrictions are best 
     for their citizens.
       I agree with and support this important legislation. If 
     there is anything else that I can do, please do not hesitate 
     to contact me.
           Best regards,
     Don Sundquist.
                                                                    ____

                                                State of Oklahoma,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                Oklahoma City, OK, March 31, 1995.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: I applaud your recent introduction of 
     legislation proposing the repeal of the National Maximum 
     Speed Limit. As you know, federal mandates and penalties for 
     non-compliance are a constant threat to Oklahoma's ability to 
     build, maintain and manage highways effectively.
       There are twenty federal mandates that affect highway funds 
     which carry significant cash penalties for non-compliance. I 
     appreciate your dedication to removing one of these obstacles 
     from Oklahoma's path, and encourage you to address other 
     mandates that threaten the prosperity of our state.
       Thank you for your distinguished leadership and your 
     dedication to Oklahoma's success. The legislation you are 
     presenting will provide our state with the freedom to grow 
     and prosper, and I wholeheartedly support this effort.
       I look forward to seeing you at the state convention April 
     8.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Frank Keating.
     [[Page S 8649]]
     
     
                                                                    ____
                                                State of Maryland,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                      Annapolis, MD, May 24, 1995.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: Thank you for your letter informing 
     me of your introduction of S.476, a bill to repeal the 
     National Maximum Speed Limit. I agree with your opposition to 
     the sanctions that are required by existing law. Instead of 
     punishing states for lack of adequate compliance, it would be 
     better to reward those states which enforce speed limits, 
     perhaps in the form of bonus funding for transportation 
     programs.
       Sanctions which reduce critically needed transportation 
     funds are counterproductive. I would not, however, abandon 
     the concept of a national speed limit, which can serve a 
     useful purpose, especially in regard to traffic fatalities. 
     Thank you again for informing me of your proposal.
           Sincerely,
                                             Parris N. Glendening,
     Governor.
                                                                    ____

               [From the Washington Times, June 7, 1995]

                       Clocking the 55 mph Debate

       If you want to get a debate going among legal scholars 
     about the meaning of federalism, ask them about the Supreme 
     Court's recent decision limiting the reach of the 
     Constitution's interstate commerce clause. But if you want to 
     get a debate going among ordinary people, ask them abut the 
     55 mph speed limit, which strikes some Americans the same way 
     the Stamp Act struck Patrick Henry.
       The 55 mph speed limit was mandated by the federal 
     government in 1973 at the behest of President Nixon, who 
     proposed it as a way to conserve fuel during the Arab oil 
     embargo. States, which had always set the speed limits on 
     their highways, suddenly found they had lost their authority. 
     They may finally get it back, though, as a result of the GOP 
     takeover of Congress. Republican Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma 
     has introduced a bill to repeal the federal maximum. Other 
     bills in Congress would simply deprive Washington of the 
     money to enforce it.
       The issue that arouses car buffs is speed. Prior to the 
     federal intrusion, states set the limits anywhere from 65 mph 
     to 80 mph--and Montana and Wyoming had no limit at all. 
     Drivers with lots of pent-up horsepower have yearned for 
     years to be able to open the throttle without fear of the 
     highway patrol.
       The passion on the other side of the issue is safety. One 
     unforeseen result of the lower speed limit, defenders say, 
     was a sharp decline in traffic fatalities, and one inevitable 
     consequence of raising it will be more carnage on the roads.
       The opponents of 55 are not entirely without arguments. 
     They insist that everyone ignores it because it is 
     ridiculously low and that higher limits would bring the law 
     into closer conformity with the prevailing practice. Besides, 
     they say, plenty of highways are engineered for much higher 
     speeds than those now allowed.
       The case amounts to more than
        just determined rationalization of dangerous behavior, but 
     not a lot more. The defenders of 55 say that when 
     Washington let states raise the limit to 65 on rural 
     interstates in 1987, the death toll on those roads jumped 
     by 20 percent.
       This validates the common-sense assumption that if people 
     drive faster, they are more likely to get killed. ``It's 
     possible to design cars and roads for high speed, but we 
     haven't been able to design people for high speed,'' says 
     Chuck Hurley of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 
     If posted maximums rise, I somehow doubt today's speeders 
     will start obeying the law. Higher limits may or may not mean 
     less speeding; they will definitely mean more speed.
       But to get caught up in the issue of where to set the speed 
     limit is to miss the more important issue, which is who 
     should set it. There are plenty of good reasons to support 
     55, but none to insist that it be imposed by Washington.
       On this, the left and the right should have no trouble 
     agreeing. Conservatives have always wanted to decentralize 
     power. But last year, during the debate on the crime bill, it 
     was liberals who opposed Congress' grandstanding 
     federalization of crime by noting that public safety and 
     order have always been the province of local and state 
     governments. If you're waiting for liberals to apply that 
     logic to the speed limit issue, though, you'd better make 
     yourself comfortable.
       In fact, there is no reason on Earth that states should not 
     be free to decide for themselves whether the danger of more 
     auto accidents outweighs the advantages of faster travel. In 
     a country that has highways as congested as New Jersey's and 
     as empty as New Mexico's, we should be able to recognize that 
     different places and that locals are best situated to make 
     the judgment.
       Nothing about the issue warrants federal intervention. If a 
     state ignores pollution, the state next door will suffer harm 
     to public health; if a state slashes welfare, its neighbors 
     may be flooded with paupers. But if Illinois chooses to let 
     people drive 70 mph on its highways, no one in Iowa will be 
     at risk.
       Iowans who venture eastward, granted, may be exposed to 
     more adventure than they prefer on the highway. But Iowans 
     who set foot in Chicago endure a greater likelihood of being 
     murdered, which doesn't give them the right to dictate the 
     number of cops on the street.
       If states and cities are competent to set the speed limits 
     everywhere from quiet residential streets to busy six-lane 
     boulevards, they can certainly handle highways. Those who 
     support keeping the 55 mph maximum should make their case to 
     state legislatures, which are not indifferent to the lives 
     and limbs of their constituents. Legislators may not always 
     arrive at the right policy, but one of the prerogatives of 
     states in their proper responsibilities is the right to be 
     wrong.
                                                                    ____

               [From the Washington Times, June 20, 1995]

                   Why Do We Still Have to Drive 55?

                            (By Eric Peters)

       Make sense of this if you can: Prior to the great oil price 
     shocks and shortages of the 1970s, speed limits on American 
     highways were typically set at 70-75 mph. Now in those days, 
     cars were great lurching behemoths riding on skinny little 
     bias-belted tires that needed more room than an incoming 747 
     to come to a stop. No antilock brakes (ABS), no air bags--and 
     suspensions that weren't worth a hoot in a corner.
       Jump forward to 1995. All new cars have radial tires, 
     superb brakes (and almost all have ABS), offer excellent 
     road-gripping suspensions, air bags and superior body 
     structures that, when combined with today's state-of-the-art 
     powertrains, make for automobiles that can safely loaf along 
     on a modern interstate highway at 80, 90--even 100 mph--in 
     the hands of any competent driver.
       Yet the federal government adamantly clings to the 55 mph 
     ``national speed limit''--citing ``safety'' and the need to 
     conserve fuel.
       The second rationalization--energy conservation--is easily 
     dispensed with. Proven reserves are sufficient to supply our 
     needs into the foreseeable future--and new oil fields are 
     being discovered all the time. As proof of this abundance, 
     one need only take note of fuel prices at the pump, which 
     have remained constant or declined over the past 15 years.
       If the supply of oil was in danger of drying up, prices 
     would be skyrocketing in anticipation of impending shortages. 
     Yet a gallon of unleaded premium today is typically sold for 
     $1.35-$1.40--which is less than what it cost in 1980.
       Besides, thanks to overdrive transmissions, fuel injection 
     and computerized engine management systems, today's cars are 
     much more efficient than their crude forebears of the mid-
     1970s. Simply driving a late model car--even at 80 mph--is a 
     fuel-saving measure all by itself.
       The safety issue is the toughie. Pro-55 people recite the 
     mantra that ``speed kills''--an allusion to their belief that 
     the higher your rate of travel, the less time you will have 
     to react; ergo, you are more likely to have an accident when 
     driving fast--and more likely to die or be seriously injured 
     when you do have one.
       There's a certain logic to this, but
        it fails to take into account the improvements in vehicle 
     design that have occurred over the past two decades. 
     Today's cars are so much better, so much safer (thanks to 
     ``crumple zones,'' side-impact beams in the doors, air 
     bags, etc.) than cars built just 20 years ago, that 
     they're generally less likely to be involved in accidents, 
     and if they are, the occupants are less likely to be 
     seriously hurt.
       For example, after Congress gave states the authority to 
     raise the speed limit on selected rural interstates to 65 mph 
     in 1987, a study done by the American Automobile Association 
     in 1991 found that fatalities in these regions fell by 3 
     percent to 5 percent overall--thus belying the conventional 
     wisdom that ``speed kills.''
       There's also a wealth of information derived from crash 
     studies done by the automobile manufacturers themselves, all 
     of which indicates that people in modern cars equipped with 
     air bags and other safety features have much better odds of 
     surviving a serious accident than occupants of older vehicles 
     lacking such features.
       I know, for example, that if I slam on the brakes in my 
     ponderous and poorly designed 1976 Pontiac Trans-Am (a state-
     of-the-art, ``high performance'' car back then) at 100 mph, 
     I'm going to go into a skid and will probably wreck the car. 
     If I tried the same thing in a 1995 Trans-Am--which has high-
     capacity, 4-wheel disc brakes and anti-lock--I wouldn't even 
     spill my drink.
       A front end collision 20 years ago at 40 mph was usually 
     fatal; today, thanks to air bags, you stand a very good 
     chance of walking away. Just ask the National Highway Traffic 
     Safety Administration. Or the insurance companies--which 
     offer more favorable rates to drivers of new cars equipped 
     with air bags, ABS and the other safety gear mentioned 
     earlier.
       Humdrum mass-produced cars can outbrake, outhandle--and 
     sometimes out-accelerate--the finest exotic and high 
     performance machinery of 20 or 30 years ago. It's ludicrous 
     to throttle their ability by making them go 55. Most people 
     understand this and recognize that the hated ``double 
     nickel'' is in place mainly for revenue collection--the 
     bounty provided by ticketing motorists for ``speeding'' at 65 
     or 75 mph on a modern highway.
       ``Fifty-five'' is almost universally despised, fosters 
     contempt for legitimate authority and, paradoxically, 
     probably increases the number of accidents because frustrated 
     drivers tailgate, swerve and pull other maneuvers to get 
     around the car ahead that's dawdling in the fast lane. [[Page S 
     8650]] 
       For now, it looks like we'll have to live with this. So 
     while we're waiting for saner--and more equitable--traffic 
     laws, a lighter foot and keener eye will have to suffice to 
     keep us all out of trouble with the law.

  Mr. DeWINE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio. The Senator from 
Oklahoma still has the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thought he yielded the floor.
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me try briefly to respond to the very 
eloquent comments of my colleague from Oklahoma. My friend talks about 
the fact that our forefathers would be shocked at amendments such as 
this. I think our forefathers would be shocked by the Interstate 
Highway System. I think they would be shocked by over 40,000 deaths 
every single year. So I am not sure that that really has, at least from 
this Senator's perspective, a great deal of validity.
  The Senator talked about the figures that were cited--that I cited, 
that my colleague from New Jersey cited. Those were not our figures. 
They were national experts, respected, who gave those figures.
  He talked about those arguments and figures being hogwash, ludicrous. 
Let me assure him that I am not attempting on this floor today to 
extrapolate or speculate or predict in any way, shape or form the 
number of auto fatalities that there will be. I think it is important 
to cite what the experts tell us.
  I am not pretending to project that. I would ask my friend from 
Oklahoma to find me one expert--one expert--in this whole country on 
highway safety who will say that there is not a direct relationship 
between speed and number of fatalities. It is an accepted fact.
  If we want to talk to the real experts, go to any State in the Union 
and talk to the law enforcement officers who literally have to scrape 
people up off the roads. The law enforcement officers who study this, 
the law enforcement officers who have to deal with it every day, and 
have to talk to the families, and ask them if, in their opinion, speed 
does not matter, and speed does not kill. It does.
  That is what we are saying. It is all we are saying. But I think it 
is a lot to say. I agree with my colleague from New Jersey. No one is 
saying that anybody on this floor does not care about human life and 
does not care about the welfare of people. I think the evidence is 
abundantly clear what will happen if, in fact, this bill as written is 
passed without this amendment.
  The evidence is clear. We saw the statistics in 1973 and 1974. We saw 
what happened when this Congress allowed more flexibility at the State 
level. We saw what happened. We saw that the States did jump in. We saw 
the tremendous pressure. We saw the fact that speed limits were 
increased. Then we saw the auto fatality rate change. We saw it go up 
from what it should have been and was expected to be.
  I do not think it is too big of a step of the imagination--I think, 
the opposite. The evidence is abundantly clear what will happen. That 
is, that speed limits will, in fact, be increased.
  It is true that this bill does not do it directly. It will do it 
indirectly. The consequences are very clear.
  I want to assure my colleague from Oklahoma I am not saying that we 
can predict exactly how many people will die, how many families will be 
crushed. But we can pretty well predict this: more will be--with this 
bill as it is written--than would be if the amendment were passed. I 
think that is very, very, significant.
  I know there are other Members on the floor who would like to talk. I 
would end by saying that this is a compromise. I think it is a rational 
compromise.
  It is rational that when you drive on the Interstate Highway System 
there be uniformity. But it is also rational, as we turn power back to 
the States, as we are sensitive as we should be to where the 
enforcement should take place and who has to really do the job every 
day, that we not try to micromanage things from Washington, and not 
tell the States how to enforce the law, allow the States the 
flexibility to do that.
  That is what this bill does. It eliminates the reporting. It 
eliminates the looking over the shoulder. What it does say is that 
there is still a national standard.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Would the Senator from Ohio yield?
  Mr. DeWINE. I am happy to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Does the Senator from Ohio not feel that the Ohio 
Legislature is not competent to set the speed limit for the State of 
Ohio?
  Mr. DeWINE. My colleague would make the point of States rights, and 
my colleague from Oklahoma made the point about States rights.
  For this Senator, it is a balancing test, as I think most things are 
in Congress, most things are in the Senate. It is a balancing test of 
how much we send back to the States, how much we need to have some 
national uniformity.
  I think what we are doing in this amendment is, in fact, a balancing 
test. It is not a question of do we know best here? Do people know best 
in Columbus or Indianapolis? I think it is simply a balancing test. 
That would be my response to my friend.
  I yield the floor.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the proponents of two amendments are 
desirous of getting fixed time agreements and a set time for the vote.
  I would like to propose for a discussion a unanimous-consent request 
that, at the hour of 12:15, there occur a vote on the amendment of the 
Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] that would be for a period of 20 
minutes, the normal time for a vote; at the conclusion of that, there 
would be a vote; then, on the Lautenberg amendment, or in relation to, 
for a period of not to exceed 10 minutes; and that the time remaining 
between the end of this colloquy discussion now be equally divided 
between the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield? In the earlier unanimous-
consent request we had an agreement that a technical change to the 
Lautenberg amendment would not affect the structure of the amendment, 
but would reflect the response to whatever the outcome is on Reid would 
be acceptable. I would like to have that in there.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I so amend the unanimous-consent request 
to reflect that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. How much time do I have to speak to the amendment, 
since I introduced it in the committee?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that would be up to the discretion of the 
two individuals that have been assigned the allocation of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, further to inform the Senate, at the 
conclusion of the second vote, the Senate would stand in recess for a 
period of time determined by the leaders which I presume would be until 
2:15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Our colleague from North Carolina did want some time, 
and in the remaining 20 minutes, if we had 5 minutes to wrap up, I 
would agree for the Senator from North Carolina to have 15 minutes.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I will not need 15 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Such time as the Senator desires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, that will occur.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest since we have now adopted the 
unanimous consent that the Chair restate it for the benefit of all 
Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time between now and 12:15 be equally 
divided between both sides, and the Senator from North Carolina be 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Who yields the time to the Senator from North Carolina?
  Mr. NICKLES. I yield 5 minutes.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, hearing the eloquent rebuttal from the 
Senator from Oklahoma does not leave a lot to say. A few things occur 
to me.
  The one thing we have said repeatedly is that the bill does not set 
or raise speed limits. It does not lower them, it does not raise them. 
I would have thought by osmosis, it would have gotten through to most 
people, if by no other method. However, it does not seem to have done 
so.
  The press is adamantly insisting that we are raising speed limits. We 
are simply saying what the amendment and bill says, and that is the 
States will have the right to do it. The States. [[Page S 8651]] 
  As was read by the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles read the 
10th amendment. It is clear. This is the prerogative of the States. Yet 
we have taken it. We do everything. The Federal Government can do it 
all.
  The amendment, as proposed, is complete hypocrisy. It says you post a 
speed limit but you do not enforce it. You post it. You have to put the 
sign up, but you do not do anything about it. It becomes a joke, a 
facade. But you have to post it.
  If that does not breed contempt for the law, I do not know what 
would. It is precisely the kind of proposal that you would expect out 
of Washington. To propose something, put up the sign, but, really, it 
is kind of wink at it, ride by and give it a little wave.
  Senator Lautenberg could post 35 miles per hour on the New Jersey 
turnpike and allow 80, but it would look good. This thing is totally 
crass politics.
  What we are doing here today is simple, common sense. That is to let 
the States do it. I do not think anybody believes that Rhode Island 
needs the same speed limit on most of its roads as Arizona or the wide 
open States. We, in North Carolina, do not need the speed limit that 
they need. We cannot drive as fast as a person probably could in 
Arizona or Nevada or some of the other States.
  This is the worst example of Washington knows best, or the worst 
example of our attempt to compromise.
  I said one time that if somebody put in a bill to burn the Capitol 
down we would not tell him he was an idiot, we would compromise with 
him and burn a third each year. That is about what this amounts to. We 
are simply saying that we do not want to really face up to giving the 
States the authority, and yet we do not want to force them to enforce a 
law.
  Senator Nickles read a number of letters from Governors and heads of 
departments of transportation all around the country. I have several. 
One I have is from North Carolina. It says, just one brief paragraph of 
it I will read. This is from Sam Hunt, the head of the department of 
transportation from North Carolina.

       States are capable of establishing speed limits within 
     their individual borders on the basis of sound engineering 
     practice and the specific circumstances involved. Federal 
     involvement is not required. Every State is different, and a 
     ``one size fits all'' approach is totally inadequate and 
     inappropriate.

  Mr. President, I do not know much more you can say on this except to 
reiterate repeatedly that this is not a bill to raise the speed limit. 
This is a bill to give the States the authority to set whatever speed 
limit they see fit.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield the Senator an additional 2 
minutes.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. We had an election in November in which the people 
stated clearly that we wanted less rules, less regulations and less 
authority from Washington. They wanted the right to set their own rules 
and regulations where it was reasonable and practical.
  In this instance it is totally reasonable and totally practical that 
the States should be setting the speed limits. If a State legislature 
is not capable of setting the speed limit within the State then what is 
it capable of doing?
  I submit to you, Mr. President, this is another intrusion of the 
Federal Government into a State right, a law the States should be 
handling and passing at whatever speed they want it to be. And it is 
not an attempt to increase the national speed limit. The States have 
the right to set their own.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Feinstein be included as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the debate 
coming from the opponents of my amendment, and, frankly, I am 
perplexed. I am sorry my good friend from North Carolina left the room 
because he and I have engaged in friendly differences before and I 
wanted to have a chance for this friend to respond. But he is out of 
the room.
  I will, nevertheless, respond to a couple of comments that both he 
and our distinguished friend from Oklahoma made. Here we are, robbing 
the States of their opportunity to make decisions, and, by eliminating 
sanctions, by eliminating reporting requirements, by getting the so-
called burden off the States so they do not have to respond to Uncle 
Sam.
  They said, ``No, that is not good. Are we not responsible citizens 
who run our States? Governors and legislators and all that?''
  Of course. I agree to that. I think they are intelligent people. And 
I said earlier I do not think one part of this debate wants more people 
dead on the highways than the other. I just think it is a terrible 
error to remove the speed limit rules we presently have. But it is up 
to the States. It is up to the States to enforce it. So, on one hand, 
the States are intelligent enough to do it if we just let it go. On the 
other hand, they are not intelligent enough to do it if we say, ``Here 
are the rules. You decide how the rules are played.''
  Mr. President, I wrote the law on the Senate side to raise the 
drinking age to 21. We had a strong debate and it happened. It is said, 
by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, that 14,000 kids 
are alive today who would not have been.
  I point out to my friend from Oklahoma, there is not one demand by 
the Federal Government that they do anything. We are relying on the 
intelligence of State governments to administer these programs. Mr. 
President, 14,000 families spared of mourning, spared of the pain and 
anguish of the loss of a loved one.
  We wrote the law and the law stood and we did not have to tear down 
the Federal Government or burn the building to make it happen.
  I hear these arguments all the time about how foul the Federal 
Government is, and I do not understand it. We built the greatest Nation 
on Earth. People will kill to get here--will die to get here. But we 
criticize this place as if it is some foreign body. This is the 
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people. We ought 
not to forget that.
  We constantly make derogatory remarks about what it is, what bad 
things we do here. ``We pick the pockets of our citizens and throw the 
money away.'' What nonsense.
  This is about saving lives and it is yes or no. That is the way it 
is. We have an amendment here that tries to strike a compromise. It 
says to the States we understand you are intelligent people, caring 
people. We all wept when Oklahoma City saw that terrible explosion. We 
all shared the grief and the sympathy for the people there. This is a 
caring body. No matter how our opponents try to paint it, we give a 
darn about what happens out there. This is not just Big Brother. We are 
trying to do the right thing. If we disagree we disagree, but it is not 
hypocrisy and it is not crass politics. It is not any of those things. 
It is human beings.
  When I think about people out there I think of my four children and 
my two grandchildren and I say God willing, I want to protect them any 
time I can. So it is with other people's children and grandchildren as 
well.
  Mr. President, we have had a lot of talk about this. Frankly, I hope 
sense will prevail, we will be able to put up signs that say: Remember, 
these roads were built for safety at 65 and 55 miles an hour. If it has 
a chilling effect on the driver's foot on the accelerator pedal it is 
OK with me. All of us know that few people in this world are exactly 
tuned in to the speed limit. Mr. President, 65 in most States, whatever 
the dialect, whatever the intonation, says 75. And when it says 55, it 
really says 65. So we are kidding ourselves.
  We keep hearing from our opponents that we want no speed limits. But 
they are objecting to the fact that we are saying they ought not remove 
the speed limit. Removal is OK, as far as the opponents are concerned. 
But I do not understand what they mean when they say: But that does not 
mean we simply raise the speed limits willy-nilly. Of course they can. 
And that is what we would like not to see happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma controls 3 minutes 
and 44 seconds.
[[Page S 8652]]

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of discussion, 
primarily on the part of the proponents of the Lautenberg-DeWine 
amendment, talking about saving lives. I can sincerely say I want to 
save as many lives as anybody else in this body. I think the States are 
just as interested, if not more interested, in saving lives than we are 
in the Federal Government. I know if a person is the Governor of 
Missouri or the Governor of Montana or Governor of New Jersey, he wants 
to save lives in his State, probably, maybe more than we do as a 
collective body. It is very close. It is personal. Those are their 
constituents.
  To be perfectly clear, we are saying the States should make that 
decision, not the Federal Government. We should not have this Federal 
mandate.
  Some people say if you increase the speed limits--we are not 
increasing the speed limits. We allow the States to make that decision. 
If the State of Virginia decides they want to have a uniform rate they 
can have a uniform rate. If the State of Virginia wants to have it at 
55 they can have it at 55. If they want to have it at 40 they can have 
it at 40. They should have that right. It is a question of who makes 
that decision, the Federal Government or the State government.
  Our forefathers, in the 10th amendment of the Constitution, clearly 
said all other rights and powers are reserved to the States and to the 
people. Yet we have this national speed limit. What is right for New 
Jersey may not be what is right for Oklahoma or Montana or Nevada.
  I might mention, too, if you want to be ludicrous--people say we can 
save lives. You can pass a speed limit and say the national speed limit 
is going to be 20 miles an hour and you might be able to save 30,000 
lives. We have 40,000 fatalities per year. If you set the national 
speed limit at 15 miles an hour you might not have any fatalities. 
Maybe some people would not comply with the law. They are not complying 
with this law.
  There is a lot of contempt right now for the law because people are 
not complying with it. Under the Lautenberg proposal you would have 
even more contempt because we are telling the States you must post what 
we think is in your best interests. We are telling you, you must post 
55 miles per hour in your areas except for rural interstates and then 
you can post 65 mph limits. I was the sponsor of the amendment that 
allowed the States to go to 65. I do not hear anybody saying we should 
repeal that.
  What about lives? If you want to make a real change, come up with an 
amendment that allows us to set the national speed limit at 30 miles an 
hour or 20 miles an hour and we will really save lives. At what 
expense? What loss of freedom? Again, who should be making this 
decision? That is what the real issue is about, which group will make 
that decision? Are we going to allow the States to have the decision or 
are we going to mandate, as under the present law, that the Federal 
Government makes the decision?
  Under the Lautenberg amendment we tell the States you must post 
national speed limits and we do not care whether you comply with them 
or not, or enforce them or not. That is going to breed contempt for the 
law. That makes very little sense. I do not like the States enforcing a 
national speed limit, but I do not like the Federal Government setting 
a national speed limit. Those are two things the Federal Government 
really should not do, and we are going to confuse the situation even 
further. You must impose limits but not enforce them, so you are going 
to have contempt for the law. That is the Lautenberg amendment. That 
makes no sense.
  The committee came out with the right approach. The committee said, 
``Let us let the States make the decisions. We have confidence in 
States.'' Many of us have worked in State government. We have many 
Members of this body who are former Governors who have every bit as 
much concern over the health and safety of their constituents as we do 
on the Federal level. Let us allow them to make the decision, as I 
believe our forefathers would have wanted us to. This should not be 
mandated by the Federal Government.
  So I hope we will give the States that opportunity to set the limits.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, just to be sure, I ask how much time 
we have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes and 30 seconds.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will take 30 seconds and yield 1 minute to my 
colleague and 1 minute to the Senator from Ohio. I would say, what I 
have just heard on this floor astounds me. When the Senator from 
Oklahoma--and I know he means no malice--suggests if we reduce the 
speed limit enough we could save more lives, in turn what he is saying 
is that it is not worth keeping it where it is to save the lives that 
we can save. I wonder whether that message could be delivered in 
Oklahoma from a platform where a youngster has died on the highway, and 
say, ``Listen, in the interests of speed and expediency, we had to do 
it this way.''
  I yield the floor. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, since 1987, when States were allowed to 
raise the speed limit on rural interstates to 65 miles per hour, 
Virginia has had a differential speed limit. On rural interstates in 
Virginia the speed limit was raised to 65 miles per hour for 
automobiles but at the same time the 55 mile per hour speed limit was 
retained for commercial vehicles. Based on these 6 years of experience, 
Virginia determined in the latest session of the general assembly that 
it was a matter of safety to have vehicles traveling at different 
speeds. In other words, it did not work.
  As a consequence, we went to the consistent speed for both vehicles, 
and therefore I will have to oppose the Reid amendment. I am, however, 
in favor of the Lautenberg amendment to maintain a national maximum 
speed limit for the following reasons:
  One-third of all fatal crashes are speed-related.
  1,000 people are killed every month in speed-related crashes.
  The current level of traffic fatalities at 40,000 people each year is 
intolerably high. The economic cost of these fatalities does not 
include the many thousands of people who have suffered serious injury 
from speed-related crashes.
  The economic cost is $24 billion every year, or $44,000 per minute--
one-third of which is paid for by tax dollars.
  The health care costs of speed-related crashes is $2 billion per 
year.
  Mr. President, some 70 percent of speed-related crashes involve a 
single vehicle.
  Crash severity increases based on the speed at impact, the chances of 
death or serious injury double for every 10 mph over 50 mph a vehicle 
travels.
  Rural roads account for 40 percent of all vehicle miles traveled but 
60 percent of all speed-related fatal crashes.
  Police report that in more than one-third of all fatal crashes, the 
driver exhibited unsafe practices such as speeding, following too 
closely, improper lane use, unsafe passing, and reckless operations.


          impact of repealing the national maximum speed limit

  Repealing the NMSL would allow higher limits on noninterstate 55 mph 
roads. These roads already have a severe speed problem--43 percent of 
the Nation's speed-related fatalities are on these roads.
  Noninterstate roads are not built to interstate standards.
  If fatalities on 55 mph noninterstates increased by 30 percent--as 
occurred on rural interstates where speed limits increased to 65 mph--
that would mean 4,750 additional deaths and $15 billion annually.
  The National Academy of Sciences estimates that since 1974 compliance 
with the speed limit has saved between 2,000 and 4,000 lives each year.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield to me just to respond?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have no time. I have a minute.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I yield 20 seconds to the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. I thank my friend.
  Mr. President, let me state that I have been in Oklahoma and I have 
been asked repeatedly at community meetings, Should the State set the 
speed limits, or should the Federal Government set the speed limits? It 
has been strongly supported that the States should make that decision, 
not the Federal Government.
[[Page S 8653]]

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I support the Lautenberg amendment. And 
people say this is a States rights issue. I would remind everyone that 
Medicaid, a Federal program, pays for probably the great majority of 
the injuries that arise from excessive speed and terrible accidents.
  So I hope that we will go forward with the speed limit as suggested 
by the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me talk for a moment about the 
enforcement issue. Enforcement has always been local enforcement and 
State enforcement.
  What this amendment is going to do is say, while we have a national 
standard, Congress is no longer--Washington is no longer--micromanaging 
the enforcement of it. This has always been local, and it will remain 
local. Predictions: I have only one prediction that I will make. While 
we cannot guess how many lives will be lost, the prediction is this: If 
this amendment does not pass, and if the bill goes into effect as 
written, the speed limits will go up and more people will die. That is 
what the facts are. That is what the evidence shows us. That is what 
history shows us. That is the bottom line of this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Nevada. On this question, the yeas and nays have 
been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 269 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--49

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Brown
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner
  So the amendment (No. 1427) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senate 
will now proceed to a rollcall vote on the Lautenberg amendment. Have 
the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have been ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1428, As Modified

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in the unanimous-consent agreement 
that we had before, it said that I would have an opportunity to send a 
technical modification of the amendment to the desk, and I do that, and 
then the vote will take place.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, we have no objection to the modification, 
and I move to table the Lautenberg amendment, as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to the previous order, the amendment 
will be so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 28, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

     SEC. 1  . POSTING OF MAXIMUM SPEED LIMITS.

       (a) In General.--Section 154 of title 23, United States 
     Code (as amended by section 115), is further amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 154. National maximum speed limit'';

       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``(b) Motor Vehicle.--In this section, 
     the'' and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Motor Vehicle.--The''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Passenger vehicle.--The term `passenger vehicle' 
     means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power 
     manufactured primarily for use on public highways (except any 
     vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails) that is not 
     a motor vehicle.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Posting of Speed Limits for Passenger Vehicles.--The 
     Secretary shall not approve any project under section 106 in 
     any State that has failed to post a speed limit for passenger 
     vehicles in conformance with the speed limits required for 
     approval of a project under subsection (a), except that a 
     State may post a lower speed limit for the vehicles.''.
       (b) Certification.--The first sentence of section 141(a) of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting before 
     the period at the end the following: ``with respect to motor 
     vehicles, and posting all speed limits on public highways in 
     accordance with section 154(g) with respect to passenger 
     vehicles''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 1 of 
     title 23, United States Code, is amended by striking the item 
     relating to section 154 and inserting the following:

``154. National maximum speed limit.''.
    

  Mr. NICKLES. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to table has been made. Is there a 
sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
lay on the table amendment No. 1428, as modified. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 35, as follows:
                      [Rollcall Vote No. 270 Leg.]

                                YEAS--65

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Dole
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pressler
     Reid
     Robb
     Roth
     Santorum
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond

                                NAYS--35

     Biden
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Harkin
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Hollings
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Pell
     Pryor
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Warner
     Wellstone
  So the motion to lay on the table the amendment (No. 1428), as 
modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I move to lay it on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________